London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202214856)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214856

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 January 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation and its handling of a bathroom and kitchen installation.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of his vulnerabilities.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the landlord’s contractor’s conduct and mask wearing.
5. The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a first-floor one-bedroom flat under a Rent Act tenancy which began on 7 July 1982. The property was situated in a converted house with a flat above.
According to an extract from the landlord’s records the following information was recorded for the resident:
1. Illness “sans” heating and hot water recorded 6 October 2022.
2. Mobility issues “disclosed at review” recorded 6 October 2022.
3. Dyslexia disclosed by GP and recorded 27 October 2022.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s repairs policy set out that “its mission was to create homes and neighbourhoods that (it) could proud of”. Maintenance of homes “sat at the very heart of that mission”. The landlord was “committed to delivering a reliable, operationally excellent service for residents”.
The landlord would deal with pest control where the resident was vulnerable, or where the tenant had been unsuccessful in dealing with the issues themselves or where there was evidence of a wider infestation in the block.
The vulnerable resident policy set out the landlord’s approach towards vulnerable residents as follows:
1. A vulnerable resident was someone with any condition or circumstance that: placed them (or others) at risk in their home. They could be vulnerable due to physical disability or chronic illness or result as a result of their ability to communicate, including a learning disability.
2. “Any contact with a resident could provide an opportunity to identify their needs”. It would work with professionals with disclosure authority to determine the resident’s needs.
3. Support included service adjustments, providing minor health and safety repairs at no cost and priority repairs for health and safety repairs.
4. Where vulnerabilities were identified, it would keep a record of relevant details on its housing management system. It would only record facts relevant to the vulnerability in order to log relevant support needs.
There were two policies regarding planned works:
1. Component Renewal : the resident would be contacted during the current financial year to begin any works. If there were immediate health and safety hazards, then routine repairs should be raised to make the home safe.
2. Specific Criteria applied where:
  1. The kitchen does not meet the Decent Homes Standard because major repair or replacement was required to three or more out of the six items (cold water drinking supply, hot water, sink, cooking provision, cupboards and worktop).
  2. The bathroom did not meet the Decent Homes Standard COVER (publishing.service.gov.uk) because major repair or replacement was required to two or more items (bath, wash hand basin and/or WC.
  3. It should manage the resident’s expectations and not make any promises to residents.
3. Planned maintenance policy took place where:
  1. Dwellings did not meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing: those containing one or more hazards assessed as serious ‘Category 1’ under the HHSRS.
  2. One or more of the key building components were old and, because of their condition, need replacing or major repair; or two or more of the other building components were old and, because of their condition, need replacing or major repair.
  3. A kitchen 20 years old or more, and a bathroom 30 years old or more.
  4. A home lacking two or fewer of the above was still classed as decent.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“LTA Act”) states that:
1. Under Section 11, the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair including the drains and gutters.
2. Under Section 9a, the landlord has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from damp.
Under the Decent Homes Standard 2006, which are governmental guidelines applied to social housing introduced by the UK government, sets out as follows: A dwelling is considered not to meet this criterion if it lacks three or more of the following facilities: a kitchen which is 20 years old or less; a kitchen with adequate space and layout.
The complaints process consisted of a two-stage process. The landlord would respond within 10 working days at Stage 1 and 20 working days at Stage 2. It would explain to the resident if it was unable to meet those timescales and then respond by a further 10 working days.

Chronology

The landlord informed this Service that there had been multiple attempts to eradicate vermin in the period 2008-2010.
A GP letter dated 30 September 2021 stated that the resident had reported how the infestation was affecting him. The resident had a history of serious lung disease and reported his breathing was “markedly worse” indoors. He was suffering from a new skin complaint. The infestation “could well be” contributing to his symptoms and was “a clear health hazard”.
On 6 October 2021, the landlord raised a pest control survey and to bait accordingly to eliminate rodents.
On 7 October 2021, the resident’s then representative wrote stating that rodent access was through gaps in the walls and in his kitchen, kitchen units and bathroom. She attached photographs showing “the appalling state of repair of his kitchen”. No works had been undertaken for more than 20 years. A neighbour was experiencing similar issues. She attached the GP letter. She referred to the long history and the effect on his health. The kitchen required replacing. There were gaps around pipes and significant repairs needed in his bathroom.
A pest control contractor’s report dated 15 November 2021 stated as follows:
1. Visit 8 October 2021: No activity was found on this visit, no droppings or smears found, resident had sealed off gaps around kitchen units, unable to remove kick boards, resident has fitted battening to skirting throughout property, whole property checked “with a fine-toothcomb” but no entry points were found, the resident had placed bait around the property, and it added bait to 3 of the residents bait boxes.
2. Tracking dust and a tray of grain bait was placed in bedroom cupboard.
3. Resident reported having seen a mouse and that there were gaps to floorboards under kitchen units and bath, “RV” (revisit) required.
4. Follow up visit 26 October 2021: “No signs of activity were found including behand the fridge. No takes from any stations”.
5. “To carry out kitchen proofing survey all day job required for one technician, as both plinths and units are sealed with excessive use of sealants and expanding foam, hard to predict how much damage to the unit will be made while removing the plinths”.
6. One small tray of bait was placed behind the fridge.
7. The report was left with the resident.
8. It referred to requiring a follow-up visit.
A further report by the pest control contractor referred to a visit on 3 November 2021 and a second visit but set out the same information except it added a recommendation for the removal of the kitchen units, with the landlord in attendance.
On 15 November 2021, the resident’s representative made a complaint on the resident’s behalf as follows:
1. It referred to the infestation that the resident had endured for “a long time”. The complaint set out the effects on the resident.
2. The contractor had recommended a replacement of the kitchen units and an improvement of the general state of repair in his kitchen.
3. The resident had not heard back from the landlord.
On 16 November 2021, a job was raised to address a leaking pipe and completed on 18 November 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 November 2021 with an email headed “acknowledgment of complaint” as follows:
1. The pest contractor had requested a joint visit to inspect the kitchen units. As the contractor requested a meeting on site first to discuss works, it was postponed to 6 December 2021. It had cancelled the job to remove the kitchen units as that would have left the resident without kitchen units.
2. Removing the units could cause a lot of damage to the cupboards due to the sealants and expanding foam which the resident had used previously.
3. The units would be removed in the morning and replaced after the proofing works. It confirmed the following day that it would raise any works to address any damage.
4. The proofing would be carried out on 6 December 2021.
5. If the resident did not feel this was a sufficient resolution, it would escalate the complaint.
The landlord’s damp contractor’s report of 18 November 2021 stated as follows:
1. The gutters required clearing and the brick pointing was loose and/or missing. There was no indications of moisture, no leak or flooding, no condensation or possible damp or watermarks.
2. The damp proof course was “satisfactory”.
3. There was historic mould/mildew.
4. Plastering was required to a living room wall from possible blocked gutter.
5. Windows, floors, insulation, extractor fans, mechanical vents and heating systems were satisfactory.
6. It cleaned the mould and “shielded” an area.
7. It did not identify any concerns that required further investigation.
8. It attached photos which showed some water marks and crumbling plaster.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response in similar terms to the acknowledgment of 17 November 2021.
The repairs records show that the scheduled inspection took place on 6 December 2021. It concluded that new units were required, therefore the works did not take place. According to an internal email of the same day, the landlord would raise major works. The pest contractor had been unable to identify the access points for the rodents.
The next day, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the major works to replace the kitchen and bathroom had been raised. An asbestos test would be required before any works could commence, which it had also raised. The landlord advised that the major works could take up to 6 months.
According to the resident, and confirmed by the landlord’s internal correspondence, the asbestos test took place on 10 February 2022.
On 8 April 2022, the resident’s representative chased the landlord for an update.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord wrote with an email headed “Complaint Decision” as follows:
1. A “component referral” for the kitchen and bathroom renewal has been raised. The works are carried out within each financial year.
2. The pest control had contacted the resident “quickly” and begun the treatment process.
3. It would “finalise” this complaint. If it was unable to assist further, he can ask to escalate his complaint to the next stage. It would need to understand what he feel it had not addressed and how he would like to see it resolved.
An operative attended on 4 March 2022 to look at the kitchen fan. He was unable to change the kitchen fan “unless the kitchen cupboard came down”. He “cleaned it as best (he) could. He changed the bathroom fan due to rusted and mice droppings inside it. It was not “spinning” at all.
On 7 March 2022, the resident wrote referring to the rodent droppings found in the fan. He had reported that there was an empty plasterboard box running through the bedroom to an air vent on the outside of the building. This was a likely location for rodent activity. It had been identified 10 years previously. He asked the landlord to undertake repairs.
A pest control report (raised on 11 February 2022 and/or 23 March 2022) recorded an attendance on 8 April 2022. It recorded that the resident reported a smell but no sightings of mice. The inspection did not identify any droppings or odour. He removed all baits from the premises and did not recommend further visits at that time.
The landlord raised a job to carry out the living room plastering on 27 April 2022 and 10 May 2022, stating the resident had been sent a text.. The job was marked in the repair records as completed on 20 May 2022. The plasterer attended again, on 20 May 2022 according to the resident and on 25 May 2022 according to the landlord’s repair records. He made recommendations for “someone” to look at pointing and fascias.
Three further jobs were raised as follows:
1. On 27 April 2022 to repair pointing on a front wall and was marked as no action taken on 16 May 2022.
2. Also on 27 April 2022 to repair a blocked gutter as reported by its damp specialist and was marked as no action taken on 17 August 2022.
3. On 30 May 2022 to repair blocked guttering was marked as completed on 27 July 2022.
On 22 July 2022, the resident‘s Councillor wrote as follows:
1. She referred to the resident’s age and vulnerabilities.
2. Communication had been poor in that responses were consistently late or unacknowledged. This was causing the resident considerable distress.
3. There was no handover after the officer assigned to him had moved roles.
4. There were still holes behind appliances that needed fixing.
5. Had the rest of the building been treated for rodents and remedial works carried out.
6. Were there mechanisms by which vulnerable residents were able to receive priority support.
7. She asked to escalate this complaint to the next level.
8. She asked about timescales and the landlord’s compensation scheme.
According to the repair records, on 25 July 2022, the landlord raised proofing works and works to rubber seal around a window. This was marked in its records as completed on 1 August 2022 and, in another entry, “finished” on 29 September 2022. The repair records also showed a job raised on 27 July 2022 with a completion date of 24 August 2022 to carry out proofing works and a cancelled check of communal areas.
On 26 July 2022, as a consequence of the Councillor’s email, the landlord arranged to call the resident to discuss his personal circumstances, in order to “ensure (it had) up to date details about his vulnerabilities on (its) system and check to see whether he was eligible for service adjustment needs for repairs”.
The resident reported on 5 August 2022 that the pest controller contractor attended to bait the communal areas, but not his flat. He referred to an email from the landlord of 24 July 2022 referring to a job to check the flat and a job to treat the communal area. The job to the resident’s flat showed on the repair records as having been cancelled.
The landlord replied that the treatment and proofing was scheduled for 22 August 2022. This same job had been marked as completed on 1 August 2022.
On 9 August 2022, the landlord agreed that the units should be replaced that year as the resident “had glued one unit permanently shut” and the kitchen was already “very small”.
The landlord wrote on 12 September 2022 as follows:
1. The programme for the current year was “full” so the replacement of the kitchen was on next year’s programme 2022-23.
2. The pest control contractor attempted to attend earlier than expected without notice for the works to the communal areas. It apologised.
3. If reactive repairs undertook a replacement kitchen, which it could arrange to be undertaken by a contractor, it would not be as good as a refurbishment. It would not undertake as much, such as tiling and flooring. The property would be removed from the planned works list, this could also affect any upgrades to other areas such as the bathroom.
4. Proofing works would continue behind the kitchen units and the resident would be left without a fully functioning kitchen at all times.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord informed the Councillor that it had assigned resident support leads and on 4 October 2022, a “vulnerability review” visit was carried out. It added an additional ‘flag’ for physical support.
On 29 September 2022, according to a pest control report, it attended the property. The resident reported no sightings of mice. It found no evidence of mice. All baits were untouched. It removed all baits from premises. It stated that no further visits were needed at present time.
Also on 29 September 2022, the repair records stated that pointing and fascias board work had been completed. A job to complete the plastering works to the inside wall of the living room would be raised.
The landlord wrote again on 10 October 2022 confirming that both the kitchen and bathroom were in the 2023/24 programme. It would be prioritised as soon as possible, towards the start of the financial year.
The Councillor replied on the same day as follows:
1. The delay to the works, and the vulnerability flag were insufficient.
2. She wanted an explanation for the delays to both.
3. She summarised the issues discussed at an inspection as follows:
  1. Kitchen electric fan in the window inaccessible for safety testing
  2. The rodent proofing behind back of kitchen units was outstanding.
  3. The landlord was to check insulation behind the white plastic panel at the bottom of a window behind the sink.
  4. Damp on a bathroom wall, corners of the front room and corners.
  5. No insulation in cavities in uprights by bay window – to find out feasibility of injecting foam in these cavities.
  6. The whole flat to be surveyed internally for damp.
  7. Holes from Asbestos test still not made good.
  8. Further rodent proofing under the bath was required.
  9. Provide a copy of the landlord’s notes on the resident’s vulnerabilities to ensure accuracy.
  10. Follow up on request for contractors to wear masks/how the landlord would ensure that contractors would wear masks at the resident’s property, as he was “clinically vulnerable”.
On 19 October 2022, the landlord informed the Councillor that the resident’s medical information was recorded on 1 August 2022. It had found no record of the doctors’ letters being received in 2021. On the same day, it confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint.
A job was raised on 19 October 2022 and marked as completed on 21 October 2022 to inspect damp, consider the feasibility of injecting foam in bath window cavities and survey the whole flat. The job to inject foam was subsequently withdrawn as unsuitable.
On 22 October 2022, a report by a damp specialist contractor stated as follows:
1. It reported that the gutters, downpipes, and external walls were satisfactory. The damp proof course was marked “N/A”. There were no structural issues. There was no signs of damp and mould except of historic mildew.
2. It set out as a required repair of “possible” plastering inside the living room due to the resident’s terracotta plastering and flaking paint on the left wall above the sewage pipe in the bathroom. There were a couple of cold walls.
3. There was “only a small amount of mould” (less than 30 sqcm). It did not clean the mould as a) there was no mould and b) the resident refused the offer of preventative shielding. The walls in the living room appeared dry.
4. The resident reported that a plasterer was due to attend on 31 October 2022.
5. It noted that missing pointing around the front fascia board appeared fixed, and a possible blocked gutter to the right front of the flat appeared fixed.
6. There was no need for a follow up and no return of the issue.
On 15 November 2022, the landlord wrote with its second stage response as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay due to “a backlog”.
2. A pest control contractor had attended in February 2022 and completed baiting and proofing works, where possible. “Due to the current installed kitchen full proofing works could not be completed. Additional baiting and proofing works was carried out on 8 April 2022. No mice or evidence of mice was identified and the resident confirmed he had not seen any mice but had felt he could smell mice”.
3. A further 3 visits were made with a third visit was completed on 29 September 2022. Further works had been raised to be arranged.
4. A works job was raised on 24 August 2022 to complete proofing works in the communal areas and marked as completed 26 September 2022. It had made contact with the other residents and was advised that no issues had been experienced but advised them to make reports.
5. In relation to the major kitchen and bathroom works, replacements were scheduled into a programme based on the age of equipment and a stock condition survey. All major/planned works programs were planned 6-12 months in advance. The current programme was at full capacity. The next available programme was for 2023-2024 and it confirmed the property had been been added to this programme. The works relating to this programme are scheduled to commence in April 2023 and completed in April 2024.
6. It referred to the survey by the damp contractor on 16 November 2021. It had completed the recommended works. It was to replace the extractor fan during the major works but had already arranged to replace it. The same contractor would check the white plastic panel behind the sink and make good of the area where asbestos testing had been undertaken.
7. It had arranged for a further damp inspection.
8. It offered £250 consisting of £50 for the delay to the stage 2 response and £200 for any distress and inconvenience including for his time and effort of bringing this to its attention.
On 17 November 2022, the Councillor made a complaint as follows:
1. The resident was distressed at the persistent poor communication from contractors. She asked the landlord to set out how it would ensure that contractors made appointments with reasonable notice periods and then keep to those appointments, she asked what were the penalties for missed appointments, about compensation to residents, and how the landlord would enforce the use of masks.
2. She requested an approach that “genuinely took into account” the resident’s vulnerabilities.
3. What steps the landlord would take to expedite any works and minimise stress.
The appointment was eventually arranged for 1 December 2022.
On 23 November 2022, the landlord wrote as follows:
1. There was a “maintenance alert” on each job that masks should be worn. It suggested that the resident reiterated this to every contractor on arrival, otherwise he can refuse access. The councillor suggested in reply that the landlord should reiterate this to its contractors. On one occasion the contractors removed their mask after entering. She asked what else could be done to ensure compliance.
2. Cyclical decorations were to have taken place in 2019 and 2020 but were postponed due to budget contractors and in 2020 due to the pandemic.
3. The resident did not pay for maintenance related works in his service charges.
4. The resident had three vulnerability flags on the system, a) he required service adjustments for heating and hot water, b) a mobility flag indicating he required physical support and c)for dyslexia. The doctor’s letter and details of vulnerabilities were detailed in his documents.
There followed a correspondence on and around 25 November 2022 about a contractor attending without wearing a mask and a correspondence about the landlord incorrectly informing the resident that he need to wait 8 weeks or go through a “designated person” in order to refer the complaint.
It wrote to the councillor on the same day that it was unable to contact every contractor and inhouse house operative on the day that they attended every appointment. Operatives were supplied masks. It could take action against any operative or contractor if they failed to follow a reasonable management instruction, if it was clear that the people or persons failed to follow that instruction. It apologised. It made a number of enquiries in order to investigate further. The consequences of not following the instruction could range from more training to dismissal.
The landlord informed the resident on 30 November 2022 that in addition to ringing the other residents in the building, it would write to them and request them to contact her should they experience any rodent infestation within their flats. It had raised a diary entry to contact him in January 2023 to check whether the reported rodent issue had reoccurred.
On 1 December 2022, the pest contractor attended. It provided a report. It removed one unit next to the kitchen sink. It attended three hours. It identified found holes in the kitchen, boiler cupboard, bathroom and lounge. It identified a hole around sink waste pipe, gaps to hot and cold pipes through the floor and floor edge gaps. It removed the foam and rubble from under the units. A plumber would be needed to remove the sink unit and worktop. The sink unit had been glued in place as an attempt to stop mice getting access so further removal would likely result in damage. It required additional time to carry out proofing in the boiler cupboard, bathroom and lounge. A full day would be needed.
An internal email of 1 December 2022 stated that the plastering works to the living room could not be carried out before an asbestos check. The check took place on 23 November2022. The damp report job had not been raised in accordance with the Stage 2 review and should be raised.
On 5 December 2022, the resident said he was shown the appointment by the contractor and there was no mention of the requirements to wear a mask. However, the contractors complied on being asked.
On 6 December 2022, the landlord wrote to the Councillor as follows:
1. The landlord held monthly meetings to discuss contractor performance. Where a repair provider had failed in any respect, monitoring was introduced. Operatives and contractors have been instructed not to attend without an agreed and confirmed appointment. All repair orders had been flagged as “complaint related”. It would “closely monitor” maintenance works. It would review the maintenance works and every possible effort would be made to complete all works swiftly and without further complication in view of the resident’s medical condition and vulnerabilities.
2. The operatives and contractors should make immediate contact if they could not attend and reschedule a visit date. It could impose financial penalties on contractors, but preferred “to maintain an inclusive working partnership”. In addition to the markers regarding mask wearing, it would remind the parties concerned of the obligation on mask wearing.
3. If the resident was dissatisfied it could escalate the complaint to Stage 2.
On 19 January 2023, the landlord wrote:
1. It had formally instructed its pest control specialist, to complete all the proofing works they had previously identified. It recognised it was a “cause of great frustration” that the works had not been carried out. Its surveyor conducted a full review on 13 February 23. The following jobs were raised as a result;
  1. An asbestos survey.
  2. The removal and renewal of the sink base unit and sink top and cut out access panels in bedroom ducting, booked for 13 February 2023.
  3. An additional proofing job to carry out proofing behind sink base unit and bait inside bedroom ducting.
2. It would continue to monitor the works.
3. It was unable to provide a date for the major works and they were prioritised for between April and June 2023.
In January 2023, a job was raised to carry out proofing and baiting behind the units that had been removed but this did not take place. A contractor attended on 10 January 2023 not wearing a mask.
In February 2023, the evidence showed the landlord was seeking to get works carried out sooner. An asbestos survey was carried out to the ducting and units. The plastering job was raised.
In March 2023, an internal meeting took place to arrange to complete all remaining works in the property including:
1. Opening up of plaster duct work in the bedroom to investigate reports of rodent activity
2. Complete proofing /baiting measures.
3. Re-plastering living room wall.
4. Investigation of the enclosed bathroom extract system
A damp and mould report stating that there were indications of historic damp in one living room wall corner and a small patch in the bathroom. Recent visits had confirmed there was no live or on-going issue with damp, mould or condensation in the property.
On 14 April 2023, an appointment took place for a visual survey by the landlord’s kitchen and bathroom installer. A carpenter cut an observational panel in the empty plasterboard box.
In May 2023, pest control contractor was sent away due to not wearing a mask. One of the front room walls was plastered.
The Councillor wrote to the landlord on 23 November 2023 that the resident was living “yet again” in a damp home with rodents. The contractor who had inspected the ceiling inside and the wall and roof on the outside on the 31 October 2023, had already submitted an estimate for work on the wall and roof outside, but this awaiting approval.

Assessment and findings

The kitchen and bathroom works and rodent infestation

The resident was unhappy with both the condition of the kitchen and the rodent infestation due to disrepair in the kitchen (gaps behind the units), therefore the issues of the infestation and the condition of the kitchen were linked.
It was reasonable that the landlord raised a pest control survey in response to the resident’s reports. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised a condition survey, both in relation to the condition of the kitchen and in relation to the pest infestation. An inspection would be to assess its condition under the Decent Homes standards, given the report of the age of the kitchen and the landlord’s policy regarding the components. The inspection by the landlord was, instead, instigated by the pest control contractor, given it was unable to access behind the units.
There was difficulty in proofing the gaps in the units as the resident had sealed them, presumably to prevent the infestation. The landlord reasonably did not attribute blame to the resident for sealing the units or allow this to affect its decisions.
It was reasonable that the landlord, when it did inspect in December 2021, raised major works to replace both the bathroom and kitchen. However, these works were not carried out until April 2023. While the landlord provided an explanation for its decision and it prioritised the resident’s property for the beginning of the next financial year, the communication was poor and there was poor management of the resident’s expectations. The landlord initially informed the resident that the works would be carried out within six months (by July 2022). There was no evidence that the landlord proactively communicated with the resident until the surveyor wrote to the resident on September 2022. It did not acknowledge the delays which did not assist the landlord and tenant relationship.
It was reasonable to consider replacing the components and to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of doing either with the resident. The landlord did not explain why it could not do both, namely replace the components and carry out a refurbishment, however, it seems reasonable that such works would have to be done together rather than in a piecemeal way.
While it raised the major works, the landlord did little to consider how to manage the pest infestation in the meantime. While there was little evidence of a live infestation, it took the landlord several months to act on the resident’s reports about other possible areas of access, including the voids (empty plaster box and air vent), from March 2022 (if not sooner) to December 2022. While it was reasonable that the landlord finally arranged interim works, and they were only partially delayed by asbestos surveys, there was a significant delay.
It was reasonable to make enquiries with other residents in the building about rodent infestation but the landlord’s assertion that it “had made contact with the other residents and was advised that no issues had been experienced” when it had in fact only contacted one of the residents, lacked transparency. It is noted that the landlord remedied this by contacting the residents again and diarising the issue.
While the landlord raised pest control inspections, and there was no significant evidence of an ongoing infestation, there were significant delays to the landlord carrying out interim works pending the refurbishment of the kitchen and bathroom, in addition to which its communication regarding the major works was poor.

Damp and mould

The evidence indicated that the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of damp by carrying out repairs to the gutter in November 2021, though in some cases, the jobs to clear the gutters appeared to take several months (from April/May to July/August 2022). It also instructed a damp specialist on more than one occasion. It is noted that the findings that there were no watermarks were contradicted by the photographs. However, the report identified the damp was historic. While there was no evidence that the property was unfit for habitation, the findings differed from the resident’s and councillor’s observations. The landlord is entitled to rely on its experts however, it acted reasonably in raising a fresh inspection. The position on the damp proof course was also contradictory. The November 2021 report stated there was no issue with the damp proof course but the October 2022 report stated that the damp proof course was “not applicable”, therefore this leaves uncertainty.
Given the discrepancy in accounts, and that the resident is still reporting damp, the Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord instructs an independent survey by a suitably qualified RICS surveyor for a detailed report with damp readings and also to determine whether there is a damp course in the property and if so, its condition.
It was unreasonable that the repointing the damp specialist recommended to be carried out in November 2021 was not carried out until September 2022 and the plastering works not until May 2023. This appeared to be because a plastering job was raised prior or at the same time as the repointing works so that the plastering job was cancelled. There was no explanation why the repointing job was raised in April 2022 and cancelled in May 2022. The plastering works were raised again to take place at the end of October 2022 but were delayed again due to the need for a further asbestos check. It was not clear why this had not been anticipated sooner.
However, while the landlord arranged damp reports, there was a significant delay to the repairs recommended by the damp contractor. The Ombudsman therefore does not find that the landlord’s offer of £50 sufficient resolution and finds maladministration in relation to the damp and mould and will make orders proportionate to their findings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of his vulnerabilities.

The GP letter would have alerted the landlord that the resident had vulnerabilities in relation to his health. A disability is defined by Section 6 of Equality Act 2010 as “a long term as a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal daily activities”. At that juncture, the landlord could have considered whether the resident was protected by that Act, and would have at the very least alerted the landlord to the resident’s vulnerabilities, if it was not already aware of them.
When the resident’s circumstances were clarified in September 2022, the landlord referred the resident for an assessment by its support team and made some relevant record entries. However, it was concerning that the landlord was not proactive, this was not acted upon until the councillor’s intervention and it did not provide its records promptly to the councillor, as she requested, so as to ensure the records were correct. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be proactive in ensuring that a potentially disabled and/or vulnerable person is receiving the support and adjustments they are entitled to, as that person may not be able to articulate and insist upon those needs, by reason of those very vulnerabilities. This is both good practice and envisaged by the Equality Act 2010. It was also concerning from a record-keeping point of view, that it appeared to have lost sight of the GP’s letter.

The contractor’s conduct and mask wearing.

The evidence showed that the landlord made attempts to ensure that the contractors wore masks and there was proper notice given. The jobs raised, especially the jobs in 2023 were marked with reminders to wear masks. The landlord could not have absolute control over the actions of its contactors but it could have escalated the issue as part of its contractual arrangements. The matter of wearing masks was serious. It made it clear that if the resident declined access the contractor would have to re-attend. This did not solve the issue as this would entail more delay and further disruption for the resident. While it set out its processes in its email of 6 December 2022, there was significant repetition of the same issues. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The complaint process lacked clarify. The acknowledgment and the Stage 1 response were similar and there appeared to be a further complaint response on 22 February 2022 headed “complaint decision.”. There was no clear explanation of the process. The Stage 1 responses consisted of a summary of what works had been raised. The email of 22 February 2022 did not explain what a “component replacement” meant or what “finalising” a complaint meant. It was unclear at that stage whether the landlord had raised a refurbishment or was intending to simply replace components parts of the kitchen and bathroom.
The councillor made a further complaint in July 2022 which, in the circumstances, the landlord reasonably treated as a request for escalation. The response of November 2022 was significantly delayed. It did not acknowledge the delays to the works. It claimed credit for having organised a damp survey in November 2021 but did not recognise that the works were not carried out until nearly one year later. The response consisted mainly a list of works but lacked reflection. The evidence showed that the complaint process did not follow through its assurance of raising a damp report so that there was a delay. It also showed that, while the landlord acknowledged the delay in its response, there was no indication that it had carried out a meaningful review. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure and did not consider that its offer of £200 or response constituted reasonable redress.

The landlord’s record keeping

This investigation was hampered by the repair records which appeared to be unclear and contradictory at times. The chronology has set out a number of unclear entries which often did not bear relation to the email narrative such as the timing of the proofing job in the communal areas. These were marked in the repair records as completed on 24 August 2022 yet the email correspondence referred to an attendance on 5 August 2022 and the second stage response to works being raised on 24 August 2022. There was a discrepancy as to when the plasterer attend on 20 or 25 May 2022. The concern is that if the records are not clear, that this may impact on internal communication.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation and its handling of a bathroom and kitchen installation.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of his vulnerabilities.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the landlord’s contractor’s conduct and mask wearing.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

While the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of an infestation and it is noted there was no significant evidence of an infestation, its works were delayed and its communication was poor.
The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports, but there was a significant delay to the recommended works and the issue does not appear to be resolved which would indicate that a review of the landlord’s approach was required.
The landlord lacked proactivity in ensuring that the resident’s vulnerabilities were noted and addressed.
While there was a limit to what steps the landlord could take in relation to individual operatives, there was no evidence that the landlord escalated the resident’s reports, given their frequency.
The complaint response lacked a sense of a meaningful review.
The record keeping was unclear and contradictory at times which could hamper internal communications and therefore the landlord’s services to its tenants

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay to the resident the sum of £1,350 which is to include the £250 it has already offered a follows:
  1. An additional £200 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation and its handling of a bathroom and kitchen installation, in addition to the £200 already offered by the landlord.
  2. £400 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. £150 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of his vulnerabilities.
  4. £100 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the landlord’s contractor’s conduct and mask wearing.
  5. An additional £150 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling in addition to the £50 already offered by the landlord.
  6. £100 in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should instruct an independent survey by a suitably-qualified RICS surveyor for a detailed report with damp readings and also to determine whether there is a damp course in the property and if so, its state of repair.
3. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should send a copy of the roof report to the resident and the Ombudsman, together with an action plan with reasonable timescales to carry out any repairs identified by the report.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should review how its staff logs information about a resident’s vulnerability and when further enquiries should be triggered.
2. The landlord should review its complaint handing in the light of the findings in this report and deliver training about its approach to a review to ensure that it carried out a proper investigation, it challenges its internal teams in order to ensure it identifies any failings or areas the landlord could explore and keeps in mind the experience of the resident, in particular in such a complex and serious case.
3. The landlord should review its record keeping of repairs in light of the findings of this report so that it is accessible internally and is accurate and kept undated.
4. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.