Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202212072)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212072

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould throughout the property.
    2. The resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy at the property, a 3 bedroom house. The resident lives at the property with her 2 daughters. The resident informed the landlord that she suffers from asthma and that her daughter has eczema.
  2. The resident reported issues with recurring damp and mould at the property from November 2020. The landlord attended on several occasions to treat the mould and identified that the bathroom extractor fan needed replacing. It also said it would check for any issues with the roof or gutters.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 November 2022. She wanted the landlord to find a long term solution to the damp and mould and she raised a concern about asbestos within the property. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 18 November 2022 and acknowledged the resident had raised the damp and mould issue since 2021. It said she had cancelled the repair for the bathroom extractor fan in October 2022 and that she could call to rebook this if she wanted.
  4. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 5 December 2022 after the landlord’s contractor failed to attend a booked appointment to treat the damp and mould. The landlord told the resident it had a backlog of complaints and could not commit to a timescale to respond. It sent its stage 2 response on 22 November 2023.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed the plan of action to install the bathroom extractor fan and said it would be completing a heat loss survey to inspect the windows and the insulation in the loft. The landlord confirmed the asbestos issue had since been resolved. It acknowledged the time and effort the resident has spent in resolving this complaint and offered £1,420 in compensation, comprising £100 for service failure, £720 for distress and inconvenience, £360 for time and trouble and £240 for poor complaint handling.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the matter to this Service. She said she wanted a long term solution to the damp and mould and for the landlord to address her concerns around asbestos within the property.
  7. It is relevant to note that the resident has informed this Service that the issue with damp and mould remains an issue as of the date of this report, although the landlord has completed some works at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. The resident has informed this Service that the situation has had an impact on her health and wellbeing and that of her family. She specifically raised a concern around damp and mould and exposure to asbestos having an effect on her breathing condition and her daughter’s skin condition. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more suitable to be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts and will not be assessed as part of this investigation. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice concerning this. However we have given general consideration to any distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident.
  2. In referring the matter to this Service, the resident originally raised issues related to a leak that affected the kitchen and the landlord’s handling of the asbestos found in the kitchen ceiling under this case reference. The resident later confirmed she no longer required support with that complaint and wished for this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and other asbestos concerns. For the avoidance of doubt, this investigation has only assessed the complaint made to the landlord on 17 November 2022, about damp and mould and asbestos, to which the landlord issued its final response issued on 22 November 2023.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould throughout the property.

  1. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord as early as November 2020. The landlord attended to treat the mould. The evidence shows the resident reported issues with damp and mould to the landlord on at least 7 more occasions before making her complaint on 17 November 2022. In response to these reports, the landlord:
    1. Referred the matter to its healthy homes team. The landlord’s website explains this is an initiative, working in partnership with a specialist damp and mould contractor, to tackle the root cause of damp and mould in homes.
    2. Completed several mould treatments.
    3. Investigated potential sources of damp or leaks.
    4. Identified the bathroom extractor fan was not working as it should on 14 December 2020.
    5. Identified a potential roof leak on 11 October 2021.
    6. Gave the resident a copy of its damp and mould advice leaflet on 20 April 2022.
  2. The above steps were all reasonable in response to reports of damp and mould. However, in her complaint, the resident pointed out that the landlord kept just treating the mould instead of finding a long term solution to prevent it returning. The evidence that we have seen demonstrates that the landlord failed to take any permanent steps to resolve the mould and this was unreasonable. In response to the complaint, the landlord:
    1. Said the job to repair the bathroom extractor fan had been booked for 10 October 2022 but the resident had cancelled it. It asked the resident to call in to rebook the appointment.
    2. Asked its healthy homes team for advice on the issue and said it should hear back within 10 working days.
    3. Organised a mould treatment for 5 December 2022. This appointment was not attended and the landlord issued the resident with a voucher and an apology on 6 December 2022.
    4. Attended 20 December 2022 to treat the mould.
    5. Sent a surveyor to inspect the property for sources of the damp and mould on 11 January 2023. The landlord confirmed both kitchen and bathroom extractor fans needed replacing and the gutters needed to be inspected.
    6. Confirmed to the resident that windows would only be replaced under a planned programme and were not currently scheduled for replacement on 12 January 2023. The landlord noted the windows did not have trickle vents but were otherwise in good condition.
    7. Inspected the roof and gutters on 21 January 2023 and confirmed there was not a roofing issue.
    8. Completed an asbestos survey of the bathroom ceiling on 14 April 2023 confirming asbestos was found within the textured coating of the ceiling. There evidence suggests the landlord told the resident about the presence of asbestos on 9 October 2023.
    9. Treated the mould again on 16 June 2023.
    10. Recalled its roofing contractor on 22 June 2023 as it had concerns it had not completed a full inspection of the roof and gutters as requested in January 2023.
    11. As part of its stage 2 response, said it would be completing a heat loss survey to identify any further solutions. However, there is no evidence of this being completed.
    12. Offered compensation in the stage 2 response for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the damp and mould.
    13. Removed the bathroom ceiling on 14 November 2023 to remove asbestos and enable the installation of the new bathroom extractor fan. The landlord reinstated the ceiling on 28 November 2023.
    14. Attended to install the new bathroom extractor fan on 11 December 2023. However, the work did not go ahead because another tradesperson was required to enable the works.
    15. Installed the new fan in March 2024.
  3. The landlord first identified an issue with the bathroom extractor fan in December 2020 and it took until March 2024 to complete the replacement. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s repairs policy notes it aims to complete all routine repairs within 25 calendar days. The landlord’s records and internal emails note that the appointment was originally booked at a much earlier date. However, the resident cancelled or rescheduled the appointment on a number of occasions prior to raising her complaint. Although this was relevant to note, the landlord failed to evidence that it had made all reasonable efforts to complete the repair around the resident’s availability. There is also no evidence of the landlord attempting a prompt repair of the extractor fan after receiving the resident’s complaint and this was a failing.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould policy notes it will inspect all reports of damp and mould within 20 working days and instruct any works identified within 10 working days of the inspection. It is relevant to note that this policy was not in place until May 2023. Therefore prior to this, any reports of damp and mould were dealt with under the landlord’s repairs policy.
  5. This Service published a spotlight report on damp and mould in 2021 and set out a number of recommendations that landlords should consider in regards to managing complaints of damp and mould. These included:
    1. Landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. They should evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves they are taking all reasonable steps.
    2. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
    3. Landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould. Landlords should review and update any associated processes and policies accordingly.
  6. It is evident that the landlord responded to each report of damp and mould and, in most cases, treated the mould in a timely manner. However, the landlord’s response to complete the repairs to prevent the mould returning was not timely. For example, the landlord did not inspect the roof or gutters until January 2023 despite being on notice of a potential issue from October 2021. The landlord’s healthy homes team also completed assessments on at least 3 occasions and noted that the property was not always heated to an ambient temperature. Instead, the resident heated the home until it was warm and then turned the heating off. The landlord noted this could contribute to the presence of condensation. However, there is no evidence of the landlord discussing the outcome of these assessments with the resident. Instead, it simply gave the resident a copy of its generic guidance leaflet about managing condensation. Given the resident continued to report issues with recurring mould, this was an unreasonable approach.
  7. Similarly, the resident repeatedly raised concerns that the windows did not have trickle vents. She felt this lack of ventilation was causing the increased levels of condensation on and around the windows. The landlord inspected the windows in January 2022 and, although it agreed there were no trickle vents, it found them to be in good condition. The landlord informed the resident that windows were only replaced under planned programmes and the windows were not currently scheduled for replacement. The landlord’s internal emails show a discussion confirming it would be disproportionate to replace the windows only to install trickle vents, when the windows were otherwise in good condition. It was reasonable that the landlord took a proportionate approach to completing repairs to tackle the mould with the property. However, the landlord failed to share this information with the resident who was left chasing for an update on a potential window replacement. This was unreasonable.
  8. The landlord’s internal emails show a query about the roofing inspection in January 2023. The landlord had concerns in June 2023 that the roof had not been fully inspected. However, there is no evidence of the landlord taking further action to reinspect the roof or guttering to satisfy itself that these were not contributing to the damp and mould. There is also no evidence of the landlord sharing the outcome of the inspection nor its concerns about the inspection with the resident. This was unreasonable. The landlord is ordered to complete a roof and guttering reinspection or, if already completed, share the outcome of this inspection with the resident.
  9. With regards to mitigating the impact the mould was having on the resident, the landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerability. The resident made the landlord aware that the situation was affecting her health as early as March 2022. She said she suffered from asthma and also noted her daughter had eczema which was made worse by the damp conditions. However, it was not until November 2023 that the landlord asked for further details about her health condition and offered to place a health indicator against her profile. As noted above in line with this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, landlords should apply an appropriate level of urgency to reports of damp and mould. There is no evidence of the landlord adapting its approach or considering how it could prioritise the repairs based on the resident’s health concerns and potential vulnerability. On the contrary, it appears in this case that no urgency was applied to finding a lasting solution to the issue and this was inappropriate.
  10. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to share the outcome of the asbestos survey for the bathroom ceiling (completed in April 2023) with the resident at an earlier date. As far as the resident was aware, an appointment had been made for 9 October 2023 to replace the bathroom extractor fan. She was understandably concerned when nobody attended that day and instead she received a call from the asbestos contractor regarding removing asbestos within her bathroom. This was particularly of note given the resident had asked for the results of the asbestos survey on at least 2 occasions and the landlord had failed to share this. It is acknowledged that the removal of the asbestos within the bathroom ceiling caused an additional complication to the installation of the new bathroom fan. It is also understandable that this may have caused a minor delay. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations around this and that was a failure. The landlord’s overall response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property is assessed further below.
  11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered a total of £1,420 compensation, of which £1,180 related to the landlord’s failures in handling the issue of damp and mould. This amount comprised:
    1. £100 for service failure.
    2. £720 for distress and inconvenience.
    3. £360 for time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
  12. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged its failures and offered compensation for this. It is also noted that although the landlord failed to resolve the issue with damp and mould in the long term, it did take steps to manage the mould in the interim by offering several mould washes. The landlord’s complaint response did not breakdown how the compensation amount was calculated. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, offers over £1000 are proportionate when there were a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The amount offered in this case was proportionate to the failures identified up to the point of issuing the stage 2 response.
  13. However, as the landlord failed to fulfil all the promises made in its stage 2 response and beforehand (namely replacing the bathroom extractor fan in a timely manner, reinspecting the roof and completing a heat loss survey), this offer of compensation has not put things right for the resident. Therefore, this investigation has ordered a further £200 compensation be paid to the resident for the additional distress and inconvenience she has told this Service she incurred since the stage 2 response. Also, orders have been made ensuring the landlord follows up on all outstanding issues surrounding damp and mould within the property.
  14. In conclusion, although the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation went some way to put things right, it did not offer a full and lasting resolution to the issue with damp and mould in the property. The landlord did not consider the resident’s potential vulnerability and therefore did not apply an appropriate level of urgency to the issue. Its repeated failure to resolve the damp and mould had a significant impact on the resident. This investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and orders have been made below.

The resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property.

  1. The resident’s initial complaint included a concern about exposure to asbestos in the kitchen ceiling after a leak. However, the landlord had already addressed this concern through a separate complaint issued its stage 2 response on 29 November 2022. The resident confirmed this issue was resolved and this has not been assessed as part of this investigation.
  2. For this investigation, the resident confirmed to this Service that there were 2 issues involving asbestos and she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issues. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it had considered the resident’s concerns about asbestos within the property as part of this complaint. The issues were as follows:
    1. On 24 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that she was concerned that all the ceilings in the property may contain asbestos that could have been disturbed whilst being abrasively scrubbed clean of mould on several occasions.
    2. The resident was concerned that she was exposed to asbestos when the bathroom ceiling was removed in November 2023. This was because the landlord’s contractors had told the resident they could not complete the work to reinstate the ceiling because there were still asbestos fibres present.
  3. The landlord has not provided a copy of its asbestos management policy. However, its website notes it would normally only test communal areas for the presence of asbestos. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that it would only test an area within a property if it was due for repair works which could disturb potential asbestos.
  4. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s concern about the potential presence of asbestos in all the ceilings of the property nor of her concerns around this being disturbed during the mould treatments. Although the landlord was under no obligation to test the entire property for the potential presence of asbestos, it was unreasonable that it ignored the resident’s concerns entirely. This was a failure and the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for this. The landlord must also confirm in writing its stance around any potential risk of its mould treatments disturbing asbestos in textured coated ceilings.
  5. Regarding the bathroom ceiling specifically, the resident made the landlord aware that her concern was heightened due to the previous delay in resolving an issue with asbestos in the kitchen ceiling. For this reason, she asked the landlord to ensure the ceiling was reinstated as quickly as possible after the asbestos was removed. This was understandable in the circumstances. The landlord agreed and organised for the asbestos to be removed on 14 November 2023 and for the ceiling to be reinstated on 16 November 2023.
  6. The ceiling was removed on 14 November 2023 as planned. However, on 16 November 2023 the resident told the landlord that its contractor had attended and refused to complete the work as there were still asbestos fibres present in the ceiling insulation. This caused the resident a great deal of distress as she was worried she had been exposed to these fibres. The landlord sought clarification from its asbestos contractor and confirmed the asbestos had all been removed to the resident on 21 November 2023. It sent her a copy of the asbestos air test certificate as reassurance. The ceiling was then reinstated on 28 November 2023.
  7. There is no evidence of the landlord making enquiries with its contractor around why it had refused to complete the work. The situation was also handled solely by the complaints handler who appeared to be unaware of the landlord’s process around asbestos removal. This meant he was not best placed to provide swift reassurance to the resident. The landlord’s internal emails show several questions around why the contractor might have refused and what the landlord needed to do next. In the end, the landlord was able to confirm that no exposure had occurred and reassure the resident, however it was unreasonable that this took 5 days. Had a staff member with the relevant expertise taken ownership of the situation, the landlord may have been able to offer that reassurance on the same day.
  8. After confirming there was no asbestos present, the landlord booked an appointment for 12 December 2023 to reinstate the ceiling. This was 4 weeks after the ceiling had been removed. The resident asked the landlord to bring the appointment forward as she had specifically asked for the reinstatement to happen quickly following the removal. The landlord agreed and brought this appointment forward to 28 November 2023. This was reasonable.
  9. It is relevant to note that the landlord had the opportunity to manage this issue proactively as it was aware that this was a potentially sensitive issue for the resident. For example, it could have ensured the asbestos air test certificate was available to the contractors prior to the appointment to reinstate the ceiling on 16 November 2023. Or when it became aware of the failed appointment on 16 November 2023, it could have arranged for the next earliest appointment to reinstate the ceiling, without waiting for the resident to ask it to bring the appointment forward. Had it done so, the impact on the resident would have been reduced.
  10. The landlord did apologise for the delay in reinstating the kitchen ceiling in its stage 2 response. However, it failed to consider the impact on the resident, especially because of the previous issue with the kitchen ceiling. This investigation has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the issue with asbestos. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident said she experienced as a result of its failures. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for minor failures which the landlord has not fully put right.

The associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will respond to complaints in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord responded to the resident’s initial complaint within 1 working day. Although the response acknowledged that the issue had already been going on for a year, it failed to address the resident’s concerns about the impact this had on her. It also failed to commit to any timescales for resolving the issues, instead placing the onus on the resident to call in to book appointments for the outstanding repairs. The response did not provide the resident with a resolution to her issues and was inappropriate.
  2. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 December 2022, following a missed appointment from the landlord to clean the mould. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 6 December 2022 and explained it had a backlog of complaints and could not currently provide a timescale for a response. The resident was left to chase for a response throughout 2023 with a case handler only being assigned in November 2023, 11 months after her escalation request. This was inappropriate and of particular concern given the resident had been reporting ongoing issues with damp and mould for the duration of this period. The landlord’s internal emails note a lack of ownership of the issue during this time. It is reasonable to conclude that this inevitably contributed to some of the delays the resident experienced in resolving the matter.
  3. In an attempt to resolve her complaint, the resident sought help from the Housing Standards team at the local authority who made threats of enforcement notices to the landlord regarding the delays in resolving the issues. The resident also raised at least 2 new complaints about the ongoing issues but these went unanswered by the landlord. It was unreasonable that the resident had to go to such lengths just to have her complaint investigated.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £240 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling and apologised for the delays the resident had experienced. The landlord did not provide a breakdown of how this amount had been calculated. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance for failures, offers over £100 are proportionate for failures which adversely affected the resident. In this case, due to the significant delays in responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay an additional £100 compensation. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for failures that the landlord has acknowledged but has not offered proportionate redress.
  5. In conclusion, although the landlord offered compensation for its poor complaint handling, it did not go far enough to put things right. The resident repeatedly had to chase the landlord for a response and the landlord failed to demonstrate it had a process in place to manage her ongoing issues whilst the stage 2 complaint was awaiting allocation. This investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and orders have been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Issue a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Contact the resident to arrange to inspect the roof and gutters, if it has not reinspected the roof since January 2023, and within 2 weeks of the inspection confirm the outcome of the inspection to the resident in writing, together with timescales for the completion of any identified necessary works
    3. If the landlord has conducted an inspection of the roof and gutters since January 2023, it must share the outcome of the inspection with the resident in writing, together with timescales for the completion of any identified necessary works.
    4. Contact the resident to arrange to inspect the property for damp and mould. Within 2 weeks of the inspection confirm the findings in writing to the resident and to this Service, including an action plan with timescales to resolve the ongoing issues with damp and mould.
    5. Provide a written response to the resident’s concerns about its mould treatments potentially disturbing any other asbestos in the ceilings throughout the property.
    6. Pay the resident the £1,420 offered in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.
    7. Pay the resident £400, comprising:
      1. An additional £200 for the distress and inconvenience likely to have been incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the reports of damp and mould.
      2. An additional £100 for the distress and inconvenience likely to have been incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
      3. An additional £100 for the distress and inconvenience likely to have been incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint.
    8. All monies ordered by this Service are to be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any money owed to the landlord by the resident.