London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202229881)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229881

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of uneven floors.
2. Reports of repairs to the shower room and hallway.
3. Reports of damp and mould.
4. Complaints.

Scope of investigation

Between January 2023 and June 2023, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The investigation reviewed 103 determinations made by the Ombudsman during the period, identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The report was published in July 2023 and can be viewed on our website. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with its improvement plan and the Ombudsman is monitoring its progress in making the changes that were needed.
Some of the events in this case took place over the same period as some of the cases determined in that investigation and some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant in this case. Whilst we have referred to these in this report, we have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report.
On 19 January 2024 the resident told us that she had moved into temporary accommodation whilst her home was repaired. She told us of various disrepair issues at her temporary home. The disrepair of her temporary accommodation is outside the scope of this investigation as the issues have not been raised with the landlord through its complaint process. However, we have made a recommendation that the landlord contact the resident to address her concerns about her temporary home.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a 4 bedroom house, from 2008. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the property. We understand that the property next to the resident’s home is a commercial building, not owned by the landlord, and that it was significantly extended around 2016.
The landlord has recorded that the household has health conditions. We have seen correspondence which shows the resident told the landlord multiple times that she has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a condition which affects her breathing ability. She had also told the landlord that she has an abnormal heart rhythm and depression. The resident lives with her 2 adult children and had told the landlord that they both have asthma, eczema and depression.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure of the property including internal walls, floors and ceilings. It is also responsible for keeping the installations it provides in working order. Under section 9B (4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has been legally obliged to ensure that the property remains fit for human habitation from 20 March 2020.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Risks from damp and mould, falls and structural issues fall within the scope of the HHSRS and the landlord is required to consider if these amount to hazards that it would be obliged to remedy.
The events in this case started in 2017 and we have reviewed the relevant policies that the landlord sent to us that covered the period from 2019 to 2023.
The landlord’s repair policies set out the repairs it is responsible for and how it will respond to different types of repairs. The landlord’s policy effective from 6 April 2021 said it would respond to emergency repairs, where there was an immediate danger, within 24 hours. It would complete non emergency repairs by appointment agreed with the resident. The policy updated in July 2023 said it aimed to complete routine repairs within 25 days.
The landlord introduced its Healthy Homes programme in 2020 in partnership with a damp contractor to ensure that every case of damp and mould was investigated. The aim was to tackle the root cause of the problem and carry out repairs to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring. The landlord would make a referral to the damp contractor who would visit and give a report. The landlord would then raise the necessary orders.
Before April 2021, the landlord’s repair policies said that residents were responsible for minor condensation issues including treating mould growth. From 6 April 2021 the landlord’s policies said that condensation and mould were the landlord’s responsibility. After the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould was published in October 2021, the landlord assessed its approach against the recommendations in our report. It implemented an action plan to strengthen its approach.
From May 2023 the landlord has had a separate damp and mould policy which says that the landlord will investigate and resolve damp and mould as quickly as possible.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. Its complaints policies over the period said it would respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The policies said the landlord may extend the timescales by 10 working days and would explain the reasons for extending. The landlord says it will monitor progress after a complaint to make sure all agreed actions are completed.
The landlord’s compensation policies over the period said it would consider compensation payments where there had been service failures and an apology was not sufficient redress. For example, the landlord might pay £10 for delays in responding to queries and give compensation where failures resulted in the loss of rooms or facilities.

Summary of events

The evidence shows that the resident had reported her floors becoming uneven and problems with leaks, damp and mould from at least 2017. It shows that the landlord suspected the foundations of her home may have been affected by building work at the next door property. The landlord’s repair records suggest that it had attended to inspect the floors, damp and mould at least twice between 21 February 2017 and 19 October 2017 but it is not clear what work, if any, was done following its visits.
The landlord’s repair records show multiple further reports of leaks, damp, mould, sinking floors and cracks in plasterwork in 2018, 2019 and 2020. Some repair orders were marked as complete and others as cancelled though it is not clear what work was done or why some orders and inspections were cancelled.
On 29 March 2021 the landlord raised an order to trace leak under hall floor which was marked as complete on 26 April 2021.
The resident reported that her floors were uneven and that there were cracks in the concrete in various rooms on 16 April 2021. The landlord asked the resident for further information.
On 21 April 2021 the resident emailed again saying someone had been to look at the floors previously but had said nothing could be done. She said that the floors had moved and were now sloping, causing her furniture to be unstable, and the living room floor had a large crack down the middle. The landlord arranged for an inspection to be done on 19 May 2021.
The landlord raised an order to assess cracked and unlevel concrete flooring on 23 April 2021. The order was marked as completed the same day.
On 18 May 2021 the resident reported that a wall was “falling down” and sockets were wet due to a leak she had reported the previous year but had still not been fixed. The landlord said it would look at the problem when it visited the following day. It offered to send an electrician to make the sockets safe but the resident declined as she said that would mean she would not be able to use the shower room.
The inspection of the floors planned for 19 May 2021wascancelled as the operative was sick. The resident made a formal complaint about the missed appointment. The landlord offered another appointment on 24 May 2021 but the resident did not know her work rota for that week and said she would contact it later to confirm her availability.
The evidence suggests that a different operative attended later on 19 May 2021 and put tape over the cracks in the concrete floor.
On 20 May 2021 the landlord gave its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about the missed appointment. It apologised for the inconvenience, explained that operatives were having to isolate and said it could not always provide another operative to attend arranged appointments. It gave a £50 shopping voucher as compensation for the inconvenience caused.
Also on 20 May 2021, the landlord replied to a social media message from the resident saying it had booked an inspection for 16 June 2021 to look at the various issues in her home. The resident replied saying her home was a “dangerous hazard” and that she had COPD and other health issues.
The landlord raised a repair order for uneven and cracked floors on 26 May 2021 which noted the floors were a “trip hazard” and causing furniture to “slide”. The order was marked as complete same day but it is not clear what work, if any, was done. The resident emailed the following day to say someone had visited and said he would tell his manager what work was needed. The landlord replied that it would review the operative’s recommendations when it received them.
On 27 May 2021 the landlord raised an order with a contractor to replace some tiles in the shower room, repair the hall wall and decorate a ceiling.
On 3 June 2021 the resident reported that her washing machine was not level. The landlord said it could not attend until 10 June 2021 but would contact her sooner if there was a cancellation.
Between 14 June 2021 and 30 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord multiple times chasing progress on the repairs to her shower room and floors.
On 22 July 2021 she made a formal complaint saying that no one had updated her and the floors were a trip hazard. She said that her daughter had fallen, injuring her leg, and that her furniture was being damaged.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and called the resident on 29 July 2021. The resident said that a supervisor had visited that day with a contractor and told her that she would need to move out temporarily whilst the floors were repaired.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about the uneven floors on 4 August 2021. It said it had inspected and suspected that the extension built at the property next door had caused damage to the foundations of her home. It said that it would appoint a structural surveyor to recommend the rectification work needed.
Also, on 4 August 2021 an asbestos survey was done in advance of the repairs to the shower room. The resident called later reporting that two tiles had fallen off the wall and water was leaking onto some electrical sockets. The landlord said it could not replace the tiles until it received the asbestos report but it could make the sockets safe. The resident declined.
The resident chased for updates multiple times between 5 August 2021 and 20 September 2021. The landlord sent replies saying its contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment, its rehousing team would contact her to explain the decant process, and it would consider how it could level the floors temporarily. Around 3 September 2021 the landlord offered to fit carpets to cover the floors until they were repaired. It agreed to fit vinyl instead after the resident said that carpets were not suitable due to her health conditions.
On 29 September 2021 the resident made a further complaint about her shower flooding the hallway and kitchen when used. She said it had been inspected several months previously but no repairs had been done. She said the hall wall was now crumbling, sockets were wet and there was mould growing in the shower room which was dangerous for her children who had asthma. The landlord added this to her existing complaint about the uneven floors and chased its contractors and maintenance staff for updates. The landlord called the resident on 30 September 2021 to arrange an appointment for a structural survey to be done.
The landlord and its building surveyor visited as scheduled on 5 October 2021 but could not inspect 2 bedrooms as they were in use at the time. The landlord called the resident on 5 November 2021 to arrange another appointment and the resident said she would call back to confirm dates when the landlord could attend.
We have seen no evidence of what happened next until the resident made a further complaint on 20 January 2022 about her shower leaking into the kitchen and hallway. She said that no repairs had been done since she first reported the problem and she had been told the contractor would need to give another quote for the work. She said that she was unable to use the shower room and that the mould was “out of control”. She said that the mould was dangerous due to her COPD. On 23 January 2022 the resident told the landlord that two more tiles had fallen off the wall injuring her foot. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said that it would respond by 2 February 2022. It also chased its contractor.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 31 January 2022. It said it had approved the new quote from its contractor and the contractor would be in touch to arrange the repairs. It offered £120 compensation for the delays and inconvenience caused which the resident accepted. It also advised how she could make a personal injury claim.
On 22 February 2022 and 25 February 2022, the resident told the landlord she had tried to take her own life and was at “breaking point”. She said she wanted to move anywhere, away from all the problems with her current home. The landlord said its rehousing team would contact her.
The landlord asked the resident on 26 February 2022 whether the repairs to the shower room had been done and she replied that they had not. She said the mould had got worse and was affecting her breathing. The landlord said it would chase the contractor and arrange for a damp and mould inspection to be done.
On 28 February 2022 the landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint she had made in July 2021 about the floors being uneven and delays with repairs to the shower room. It said that its new approach to handling complaints involved a “thorough” investigation but this meant it was taking longer to progress them. It said it would be in touch as soon as it could. The resident replied on 2 March 2022 saying she had hoped that the landlord was progressing the repairs but now felt they would be delayed further. She said she wanted the repairs doing and to be compensated for the delays and inconvenience.
The landlord’s damp and mould contractor visited on 3 March 2022. Its report noted that it had not been able to inspect 2 bedrooms as they were in use at the time of the visit. The report noted visible mould in both bathrooms and said that the extractor fans were not working. It also noted mould in a bedroom and recommended that the landlord repair the extractor fans and give the resident advice on using the heating system.
The evidence suggests that the landlord’s contractor attended to clean off the mould and treat the walls on 7 March 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 March 2022 saying the contractor had not been in touch about the shower room repairs. She chased again on 25 March 2022 reminding the landlord of her health conditions and those of her children. She said the family’s health problems could be made worse by their living conditions.
On 3 April 2022 the resident sent the landlord photographs of mould in the shower room and on her belongings.
Between 28 April 2022 and 6 June 2022, the resident chased multiple times for updates on the repairs to the shower room, uneven floors and her complaint. She said that she and her family had sustained injuries due to various falls whilst the repairs had been outstanding.
On 8 June 2022 the landlord confirmed that her stage 2 complaint had been assigned for investigation. It apologised for its lack of communication and said it would contact her every week from then and would give its complaint response by 6 July 2022. The landlord also chased its contractors.
The resident asked how she could make a personal injury claim on 13 June 2022 and the landlord sent details the same day.
Between 15 June 2022 and 28 June 2022, the landlord chased its contractors and maintenance staff and gave the resident weekly updates. On 30 June 2022 it emailed the resident to make an appointment for another structural survey. The resident replied saying she was ill but would contact the contractor directly to arrange a date for the survey.
On 5 July 2022 the resident chased for an update on the repairs to her shower room. She said that she wanted her extractor fans to be done at same time as the shower repairs but they had been ordered separately with a different contractor.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 July 2022 saying it was taking longer to arrange repairs than expected and it was extending its complaint response timescale to 20 July 2022. It gave an update on the complaint issues:
1. Its contractor had attended that day to quote for the shower room repairs.
2. Another contractor was arranging an appointment to survey the structural issues.
3. The extractor fans were due to be repaired on 6 October 2022 but it would review its position when the contractor gave a timescale for the shower repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 July 2022 saying the contractor had told her it would be able to start the repairs to her shower room in 3 weeks’ time.
The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 20 July 2022 in which it said:
1. It had raised orders for repairs to the shower room on 27 May 2021 and received a quote from the contractor on 22 June 2021 which it had approved. The contractor had found it difficult to arrange an appointment with her and sent a further quote on 1 February 2022 which the landlord had also approved.
2. However, the landlord had decided to raise the repair with a different contractor. The work should have been done by 27 June 2022 but had not been.
3. It was still waiting for the second contractor to provide a quote for the work.
4. It apologised for the delays which it described as “not acceptable”.
5. It had dealt with a previous complaint about delays with the shower room repairs. It had given £120 compensation for the delays up to that point. It was awarding an additional £100 compensation for the further delays.
6. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 response and gave £75 compensation for this and £20 for the time and effort taken to chase the repairs.
7. It had asked its contractor to inspect the uneven flooring.
On 26 July 2022 the landlord chased its contractors and maintenance staff and updated the resident.
The resident called the landlord on 11 August 2022 saying its contractor had “ruined” her house and asking for clarification of the further repairs to be done. The evidence suggests the landlord sent an operative from its repairs team to check the work.
On 15 August 2022 the resident confirmed that shower room repairs had been done. She was not satisfied as the water did not drain out of the shower tray and the painting was patchy in the hall. The landlord emailed apologising on 17 August 2022 and offered to inspect the work.
The landlord sent an operative from its repairs team to inspect the shower room on 18 August 2022. Its records say the resident had said the shower pump was noisy and could be heard by the neighbours when it was used. The operative did not agree that the shower was noisy but the landlord raised another order for the pump to be checked and scheduled an appointment for 9 September 2022. The landlord also emailed the contractor about it getting paint on the resident’s floor and not aligning the shower door properly.
On 20 September 2022 the building surveyor emailed the landlord saying he had done a second visit to look at the uneven floors. He said that, since his last visit on 5 October 2021, there had been no apparent change in the floor levels. He asked if the landlord still wanted him to send a report. He said that he had noticed that a wall in the garden appeared to be leaning and felt it could be a health and safety issue.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 September 2022 asking if its contractor had resolved the issues following repairs to the shower room. The resident replied saying the contractor had removed paint from the floor but would not repaint the wall as it had applied 2 coats of paint as the landlord had instructed.
On 6 October 2022 the resident called to cancel the order to repair or replace her extractor fans. She said that 1 fan had been replaced and the other was working.
The resident chased for an update on the repair to resolve her noisy shower on 22 November 2022. She also reported that 2 walls in the living room felt damp and the plaster was crumbling. The landlord raised an order for its damp contractor to attend.
On 30 November 2022 the landlord called the resident about her noisy shower. She said that she had paid her own contractor to do the repair and the noise was resolved.
The resident chased for an update on 7 December 2022. She said the shower room repairs were done but she was still dissatisfied with the painting on the ceiling and hall wall. The landlord contacted its contractor on 12 December 2022 and the contractor said the landlord would need to raise another order for the painting.
On 12 December 2022 the resident called to say she had not given access to the damp contractor as they had not worn protective equipment. She declined a further appointment offered and said she felt the damp contractor did not know what it was doing.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 December 2022 saying it had arranged for the contractor to attend to rectify the painting and it should contact her within 20 working days. The resident replied saying the contractor had been that day and had found further problems. It had told her it would contact her the following day with a plan. The resident called later that day saying the damp in her bedroom had got worse and her furniture was wet. The landlord asked its damp contractor to attend as soon as possible.
On 16 December 2022 the landlord exchanged emails with its building surveyor agreeing the scope of a joint inspection of the structural issues.
The landlord’s damp contractor visited on 19 December 2022. The resident said she was unwell and would arrange another appointment.
On 22 December 2022 the resident emailed saying the contractor had not yet been in touch about the painting. She said she did not know what work was planned or when it would be done. She was worried about cost of decorating and time it was taking to resolve the repairs. She also called to make a formal complaint saying that floor was due to be removed on 5 January 2023 and that she wanted to make sure that her laminate flooring would be replaced the same day. The landlord told her it could not confirm whether it would be possible to replace her laminate the same day as it did not know how long the floor repairs would take.
The resident called on 28 December 2022 saying “big pieces” were crumbling off the base of a wall.
On 4 January 2023 the resident sent a social media message saying her shower was still leaking and that she had slipped and injured herself. The landlord called the resident to arrange an inspection. It also completed an accident record form and reopened her complaint.
The landlord’s building surveyor inspected the uneven floors again on 5 January 2023. In a later email he told the landlord that:
1. He and the contractor had been unable to lift the flooring in the living room and kitchen to inspect below the floorboards.
2. They had been able to inspect under the floor in the hall and had found the floor joists to be dry and in good condition.
3. The ridge in the kitchen floor and dip in the living room floor were still evident but did not seem to have got worse. He had noted no structural cracking.
4. He recommended that the resident be decanted so that the floors could be taken up to enable further investigation.
5. Cracking to rear extension had got worse and a “column” adjacent to party wall had returned high moisture readings although the skirting board was dry. The flank wall between the two properties had not been weatherproofed adequately and rainwater was likely to be penetrating the wall at low level.
6. The issues in the extension were not related to the flooring problems and further investigation was needed.
7. The internal walls were all stud walls where solid walls had previously been removed. He recommended further investigation to check that ceiling and staircase supports were adequate.
8. He suspected that the adjoining property was providing stability to this dwelling.
Also on 5 January 2023, a different contractor inspected for possible rising damp. Its report, dated 9 January 2023, noted high damp readings in the living room walls and said the cause was the absence of an effective damp proof course. It recommended that a chemical damp proof course be installed and the walls replastered.
On 9 January 2023 the building surveyor emailed the landlord. He said he intended to visit the resident’s home again with a colleague to get a second opinion on the structural issues.
Between 11 January 2023 and 18 January 2023, the resident chased for updates. On 19 January 2023 the landlord emailed saying it would try to find out what the next steps would be and would contact her when it had more information. The resident replied saying she just wanted her home to be made safe and for the landlord to communicate with her by phone instead of emailing. She also asked when she would get the outcome of her complaint.
On 24 January 2023 the landlord emailed saying it was sorry to hear of her accident and gave details of how she could make a personal injury claim. It said it was still waiting for updates from its contractor, and maintenance and rehousing teams about the repairs and decanting and would contact her when it had more information.
Between 25 January 2023 and 30 January 2023 various emails were exchanged between the landlord’s staff and with its contractors. On 30 January 2023 a member of the landlord’s staff told colleagues that he felt the property was not financially viable. He said that the resident should be rehoused and the property be sold.
On 31 January 2023, the landlord’s damp contractor spoke to the resident. She said she would give it access to 1 bedroom affected by mould but not to other rooms. She said another contractor was attending to the damp and she did not need them too. The damp contractor said it would cancel its order.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 February 2023 asking it to call her. The landlord replied by email the following day giving a new point of contact regarding her repairs. It said it had asked if its tenancy team could offer support and that its contractor had not responded to its emails. It had escalated the matter to its contract manager. The resident replied saying she was worried about the cost of having to move out temporarily and would like to speak to someone.
On 3 February 2023 the landlord emailed saying it was considering best course of action on the repairs and hoped to be able to confirm its intentions soon. It assured the resident it would try to minimise the disruption and not cause financial detriment. It confirmed her complaint was still open and explained that, whilst the stage 2 was closed, the complaint would stay open until the repairs were completed.
The resident chased for an update on the floor repairs on 9 February 2023. On 10 February 2023 she called about the damp and mould saying one contractor had been dealing with repairs in the living room and another dealing with the leaks from the shower. She had reported damp and mould in 2 other rooms but did not feel it necessary for the whole house to be inspected for damp and mould.
Later on, 10 February 2023 the landlord emailed apologising that repairs were taking longer than anticipated. It said it would not expect the resident to pay for new flooring and that it would contact her week commencing 20 February 2023. The resident asked for someone to call her back to clarify when she would be moving whilst structural work was being done. She said she was concerned that damp and mould work was being held up by the delays with the structural issues.
Between 14 February 2023 and 1 March 2023 the resident chased for updates. She said that the landlord was not responding to her and that the situation was making her feel depressed.
On 2 March 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman saying that repair issues had been going on for years. She said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repair issues and her complaints.
Also, on 2 March 2023 the landlord visited to discuss the repair issues and her needs for temporary rehousing. It arranged for a damp and mould inspection to be done on 13 March 2023 and told the resident that she needed to give the contractor access to every room.
On 13 March 2023 the landlord’s damp contractor visited but could not inspect 1 of the bedrooms as it was being used at the time. Its report noted:
1. Excessive moisture readings in the living room wall under the window, in the hallway and in the fourth bedroom. No leaks had been detected and it recommended further investigation.
2. The air vent in the second bedroom had been blocked by the neighbouring property’s extension. It recommended that a vent be put in another wall.
3. The kitchen would benefit from having an air vent fitted as it was a small room and there was no extractor fan.
4. There was no visible mould so no treatment had been arranged. But it had advised the resident on ventilating the property, using the heating and cleaning off condensation.
5. That repairs recommended from its previous visit had been done.
Between 17 March 2023 and 29 March 2023, the resident chased for updates. She explained how the repair issues were affecting her health and wellbeing, and her ability to enjoy her home. The landlord apologised for the lack of progress. On 30 March 2023 the landlord emailed her to check the details of her temporary accommodation needs. The resident continued to chase for updates on her repairs, temporary rehousing and complaint.
On 17 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive. She said that the landlord’s lack of respect and concern for her safety had gone on long enough. She summarised the disrepair issues and the position she found herself in that the landlord would not do repairs until she moved out but would not move her. Less than 2 hours later the landlord emailed the resident. It said it would offer her the next suitable property that became available in her areas of choice. It said she could decide whether to accept the property on a temporary or permanent basis.
The landlord offered the resident a property on 19 May 2023. The resident viewed it but said it was not suitable for her needs. The resident continued to chase for updates.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 August 2023 to offer an additional £870 compensation. It explained this was made up of £70 per month for the 11 months of delay in the repairs since it had given its stage 2 response and £100 for her time and trouble. It repeated that it would not know the extent of the repairs needed to her home until she moved out. The resident replied that she was not happy with the lack of progress or the compensation awarded. The landlord said that it had escalated her case to a director.
We spoke to the resident on 19 January 2024. She told us that she had moved into temporary accommodation in October 2023 to enable repairs to be carried out at her home. She said that a neighbour had told her that the floors had been removed and the landlord had confirmed this in December 2023. She said that the landlord had not been in contact with her since then and she did not know what work was going to be done or how long it would take.
The resident also told us that she has damp and mould in her temporary accommodation and that it was cold as there is only 1 radiator downstairs. She said the landlord had visited and said the heating was adequate.
We wrote to the landlord on 19 January 2024 asking it to confirm the scope of works to be carried out at the resident’s home, and its anticipated timescale for completing the repairs. We also asked the landlord to contact the resident about the damp and mould in her current home.
The landlord responded on 30 January 2024 but did not give its scope of works or timescales for the repairs to the resident’s home. It did not address our request for it to contact the resident about the damp and mould in her temporary accommodation in its response.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord met its obligations, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s special report of July 2023 highlighted the following common points of failure which are relevant in this case:
1. Policies and procedures documented but not adhered to.
2. Poor knowledge and information management leading to delays and inadequate complaint responses.
3. Excessive and unexplained delays in responding to service requests and complaints.
4. Residents not being kept informed of progress leading them to chase for responses and raise complaints.
5. Inadequate responses at stage 1 leading to complaint escalation.
6. Delays in responding to complaints meaning residents had to chase progress and ask the Ombudsman to intervene.
The presence of the above common points of failure and their impact on the resident in this case are explained further in the findings below.
In this case, the resident was reporting 3 significant disrepair issues over a similar period of time, starting in 2017. The evidence shows that the landlord typically responded to the resident’s reports in isolation without considering the historical reports. For example, when the resident reported the uneven floors in April 2021, the landlord asked for further information. This suggests it had not checked its repair history which would have shown the multiple earlier reports from 2017 onwards.
Similarly, the landlord failed to adequately consider whether the 3 disrepair issues were connected or whether they should be handled together. Multiple different staff members and contractors were involved in the various issues over the years. This resulted in a lack of accountability and coordination, and poor communication that were common themes throughout the landlord’s handling of the 3 disrepair issues. These were significant factors in the landlord failing to resolve any of the 3 issues.
It was not until 30 January 2023 that a staff member referred to the disrepair issues collectively, concluding that the property may not be financially viable. By then, the resident had been living with significant disrepair for over 5 years. After the landlord had recognised the overall picture of disrepair, it took another 9 months to decant the resident.
Three months after decanting her, the landlord had still not identified the scope of repair work needed and did not have a plan for resolving the disrepair so that the resident can move back to her home. The landlord should consider how it can improve its approach to recognise when a property is affected by multiple disrepair issues and how it should coordinate its response to effectively resolve the issues.
Inadequate and inconsistent communication with the resident was a common theme in the landlord’s handling of the 3 disrepair issues. Sometimes the landlord was slow to respond and some of its communications were unclear or misleading. There were also occasions when the landlord did not respond at all. For example, we have seen no evidence of any response to the resident’s report of 28 December 2022 that big pieces were crumbling from a wall. This is particularly concerning as the resident’s report should have caused the landlord to consider whether there were any safety risks which it should address as a matter of urgency.
The landlord’s inadequate communication meant the resident had to chase multiple times between April 2021 and October 2023 for updates and responses. The resident also asked multiple times from January 2023 for the landlord to speak to her rather than communicating by email. The evidence shows the landlord ignored her requests and continued to email her.
The resident told the landlord at least 3 times (22 February 2022, 25 February 2022 and 19 April 2022) in social media messages that she had tried to end her life due to her living conditions. This should have caused the landlord to urgently consider if it needed to act to safeguard her. The landlord responded to the messages and chased up the repairs and complaints outstanding at the time. However, it did not acknowledge the resident’s disclosures and we have seen no evidence that safeguarding concerns were raised or considered as a result of them. We consider this to be a significant failing and have ordered the landlord to ensure its social media team are trained to recognise and respond appropriately to safeguarding concerns.
Similarly, the resident told the landlord multiple times about her health conditions and those of her adult children. She told it multiple times about how she felt the disrepair issues were affecting their health conditions. She also reported 3 accidents, which she said were due to the disrepair issues and had caused injuries to her and her daughter. Whilst the landlord responded to her contacts, we have seen no evidence that it did so with sufficient urgency or concern. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord considered, or attempted, to expedite the repairs in response to the resident’s health and wellbeing concerns. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord considered whether the resident’s home was fit for habitation and safe for her to occupy. These are all significant failings.
Inadequate record keeping was another common theme across the 3 disrepair issues. The landlord’s repair records did not make it clear why orders and inspections had been cancelled or why some were closed as no action being needed. Where orders and inspections were closed as being completed, it was not clear what had been done. This would have made it difficult for staff to understand what action had previously been taken. An email from a member of the landlord’s insurance team on 14 December 2022 said, “there is no paper trail on what action has been taken and it’s not clear who is dealing with it”.
Another example of inadequate record keeping and misleading communication was when the landlord told the resident on 20 May 2021 that it had booked an inspection. We saw no evidence that an inspection had been booked. Nor was there evidence that an inspection had taken place on the day the landlord had said it would.
We also noted inadequate management of contractors as a common theme in the landlord’s handling of the shower room repairs and the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Typically, the landlord would just email the contractors for updates and there was little follow up when contractors did not respond. When the landlord did escalate issues to its own contract managers, there was little evidence that this was effective in getting a resolution.

Handling of reports of uneven floors

The landlord was slow to take effective action to resolve the uneven floors. The resident had been reporting them from at least 2017 and the landlord suspected the foundations of her home had been damaged by the extension next door. Although the landlord visited, we have seen no evidence that it took any steps to resolve the uneven floors. Similarly, we have seen no evidence that the landlord did any work when the resident made further reports in 2018, 2019 and 2020.
Although the landlord arranged to inspect on 19 May 2021, this was delayed due to the operative’s sickness. It was reasonable that the landlord offered another appointment for the following week. It was unfortunate that the resident could not confirm an appointment because she did not know what her work rota would be.
From the evidence we have seen, the landlord failed to consider the safety risks caused by the floor. By 26 May 2021, the landlord had acknowledged that the uneven floors were a trip hazard. Given the landlord’s legal and contractual obligations under the tenancy agreement, as well as its obligations under the HHSRS, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have assessed the risks and taken steps to minimise them. Although the landlord visited on 26 May 2021, we have seen no evidence of anything done to assess the risk or address the problem.
The resident’s report of 22 July 2021 that an accident causing injury had occurred should have caused the landlord to assess and minimise the risk. Although it visited on 29 July 2021, we have seen no evidence that the landlord assessed the risks of further accidents occurring whilst the floors were waiting for repair. The landlord should also have told the resident how she could make a personal injury claim.
The landlord did not decide to appoint a structural engineer until August 2021, after the resident had made a formal complaint about the uneven floors. By this time, the resident had been reporting the uneven floors for over 4 years.
It was reasonable that the landlord offered to fit vinyl as a temporary measure in September 2021. However, it is not clear from the evidence we have seen whether vinyl flooring was actually installed.
The first structural survey was on 5 October 2021 but the surveyor could not inspect 2 bedrooms that were in use. This suggests that the landlord may not have adequately explained the scope of the survey to the resident beforehand. It caused further delay as the landlord had to arrange another survey appointment. The evidence suggests the landlord had difficulty in arranging dates with the resident but it should have been proactive and followed up when the resident did not call back when she knew her work rota.
We acknowledge that there were some occasions when the landlord was unable to progress its investigation of the uneven floors. For example, it could not arrange an appointment when it contacted the resident on 30 June 2022 because she was ill. However, the landlord should have been more proactive in following up with the resident to make sure a survey was arranged.
The second structural survey was on 20 September 2022 and, although the surveyor noted no change in the floor levels, he reported a potential health and safety issue that the landlord should have acted on. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to the surveyor’s report of the garden wall leaning. This was inappropriate given the landlord’s repairing obligations and its obligations for the health and safety of residents and others.
After the further inspection of the uneven floors on 5 January 2023, the building surveyor sent the landlord a detailed noted of the issues he had observed. It contained references to other structural concerns which should have caused the landlord to consider whether it was safe for the resident to remain in the property. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
From 30 January 2023, the landlord was considering whether the property was financially viable and knew it needed to move the resident to investigate the scale of repairs needed. However, inadequate communications between its various teams caused further delays. The resident was caught between the landlord’s maintenance team who needed to move her out and its rehousing team who did not consider the decant to be a priority.
The landlord had still made no progress in decanting the resident by 27 April 2023. The evidence suggests that the relevant staff did not know the process for securing a temporary decant. For example, the surveyor had completed a decant request form on 21 March 2023 but the rehousing team said it had not been sent to its rehousing panel for consideration. When it was sent through later, the panel asked for further information to support the request. This caused further delays.
The evidence suggests that it was the resident’s email to the chief executive that broke the landlord’s inaction. Within 2 hours of her email, the landlord had confirmed it would offer her the next suitable property that became available. It should not have taken an email to the chief executive for the landlord to deal with the disrepair with the urgency that it warranted.
The resident moved into temporary accommodation in October 2023. By this time, she had lived with serious disrepair issues for over 6 years. Further, by 30 January 2024 the landlord had still not carried out investigations to establish the scope of work needed at her home and so could not give a timescale for how long the repairs will take.
The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of uneven floors.
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. The Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
In this case the landlord has not yet resolved the disrepair causing the uneven floors and an order has been made below for the landlord to do so. It offered £700 compensation for the delays in repairs on 15 August 2023 but it is not clear from the evidence whether it has paid this to the resident.
The Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s compensation offer to be sufficient redress given the resident had been reporting the uneven floors since 2017. We have made an order below for the landlord to pay £3,500 compensation for the period the resident’s home was affected by the uneven floors including the significant distress and inconvenience this caused to her. The landlord may deduct the £700 it offered on 15 August 2023 if it can evidence that it has already paid it.

Handling of repairs to the shower room and hallway

The landlord had raised an order to trace a leak under the hall floor in March 2021 and the resident had reported that sockets were wet in May 2021. Although the landlord attended on 19 May 2021, it is not clear from the evidence whether the operative looked at the wet sockets as well as the uneven floors.
The landlord raised an order to replace some tiles, repair the hall wall and decorate on 27 May 2021. The wording of this order does not seem appropriate, given the resident was reporting that the shower was leaking when used and causing the hall wall and sockets to be wet. This is an example of poor record keeping by the landlord and may have contributed to the delays in it resolving the disrepair related to the shower room.
It was reasonable that the landlord said it could not do work to the tiles until the asbestos survey results were known in August 2021. However, the evidence shows that the repairs had still not been progressed by the time the resident complained on 29 September 2021. This delay was inappropriate given the landlord knew that the shower was leaking and that the walls and sockets were wet. It suggests a lack of oversight by the landlord.
The repairs had still not been done by the time the resident made a further complaint on 20 January 2022. The landlord later said that the contractor had difficulty in arranging an appointment with the resident. This was not a reasonable explanation. We expect landlords to have sufficient oversight of contractors to ensure that repairs are completed within the required timescales and to intervene if there are delays. The landlord’s failure to ensure the repairs were completed was inappropriate.
The evidence suggests that the shower room repairs were not done until August 2022, over 14 months after the landlord had originally ordered the work. Even then, there were problems with the work done and the landlord had to recall the contractor and raise orders for decorating in the hall and checking the shower pump. The resident later paid her own contractor to resolve the problem with the shower pump.
On 4 August 2023, the resident was reporting that the shower was still leaking and that she had sustained another injury from falling. The landlord did promptly arrange an inspection but we have seen no evidence that it carried out any work to resolve the issue. Similarly, we have seen no evidence that the decorating work following on from the shower room repairs was ever completed.
The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration in its handling of the residents reports of repairs to the shower room and hallway.
The landlord paid £220 compensation in total during its complaint process for delays in completing the shower room repairs. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be sufficient redress given the disrepair remained unresolved for a further 15 months when the resident was then decanted. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay an additional £1,300 compensation for the delays after its compensation award and the distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of reports of damp and mould

The evidence shows the resident had reported damp and mould 4 times between 2017 and 2019. The landlord’s repair policies at the time said that condensation issues and the treatment of mould were the resident’s responsibility. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether it had investigated the cause of the damp and mould or whether it had told the resident that she was responsible for removing the mould.
The landlord’s healthy homes programme had been introduced by the time the resident next reported damp and mould in her complaint of 29 September 2021. The resident had said the damp and mould was being caused by the ongoing leak from her shower. This should have caused the landlord to expedite the shower room repairs. Under its healthy homes programme, it should have also arranged for its damp contractor to inspect the mould. We have seen no evidence that the landlord did either of those things at the time.
The resident reported damp and mould again in her complaint on 20 January 2022. Again, this was in connection with the ongoing leak from her shower. The landlord did not arrange for a damp and mould inspection to be done until 26 February 2022 and it is not clear from the evidence why it took the landlord so long to arrange this.
The landlord’s damp and mould contractor visited on 3 March 2022 but was unable to inspect 2 bedrooms that were being used at the time. As with the inspections for the uneven floors, this suggests that there had been inadequate communication with the resident about the scope of the visit and the access needed by the contractor. However, the mould found by the damp contractor was treated quickly a few days later.
The evidence suggests that the mould returned soon after treatment as the resident sent photographs of it on 3 April 2022. This is not surprising given the landlord had not resolved the leaking shower. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this at the time.
The resident reported a separate issue of damp in the living room on 22 November 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord initially raised an order with its usual damp contractor on 25 November 2022 but this was marked as no action taken by the contractor. The resident later told the landlord she had not given access because the contractor had not worn protective equipment.
Another order raised with the same contractor on 19 December 2022 for damp in a bedroom was also marked as no action. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen whether the landlord had addressed the issue of the contractor not wearing protective equipment before raising this order. It is evident that no work was done because the resident was unwell.
A different contractor inspected the damp in the living room on 5 January 2023, diagnosed the cause and recommended work to resolve it. However, the evidence suggests that the work had not been done by 13 March 2023 when the first damp contractor visited again and noted the wall in the living room was still damp.
The evidence suggests that the involvement of 2 different contractors caused confusion to the resident. This led to the first contractor cancelling its order when the resident told it that the other contractor was attending to the damp. That was not the case as the second contractor was only dealing with the damp in the living room and not the damp and mould the resident had reported in other rooms. This caused a further delay in the damp and mould being addressed which could have been avoided if the landlord had been coordinating the repairs and communicating effectively with the resident.
The landlord arranged for another damp and mould inspection to be done after it had visited the resident on 2 March 2023. This time it did explain to the resident that the contractor would need access to every room. Despite this the contractor was still not able to inspect 1 of the bedrooms when it visited on 13 March 2023.
The contractor recommended the landlord put additional air vents in a bedroom and the kitchen. We have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out the work recommended. Similarly, we have seen no evidence that the landlord had installed a chemical damp proof course in the living room before the resident was decanted in October 2023. As such, the landlord has not demonstrated that it resolved the damp and mould issues that the resident had been reporting.
The landlord knew about the family’s health conditions from at least 20 May 2021 and it knew from at least 29 September 2021 that the resident felt the damp and mould was affecting their health. We would have expected the landlord to have been more proactive in resolving the issues given its responsibilities under the HHSRS and the known health risks of damp and mould.
The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Orders have been made below for the landlord to resolve the damp and mould and pay £1,000 compensation for the period the resident’s home was affected by it from September 2021.

Handling of the resident’s complaints

The resident made her first complaint about the missed appointment to inspect the floor on 19 May 2021. The landlord responded within its policy timescale and acknowledged the service failure. It apologised, gave a reasonable explanation and gave compensation. The landlord responded appropriately to this complaint.
The resident made a second complaint, about the uneven floors, on 22 July 2021. The landlord sent its stage 1 response within its policy timescale and gave a reasonable explanation of the action it planned to take. However, its response did not acknowledge that the resident had been reporting the uneven floors for 5 years which suggests that it may not have adequately investigated the background. Had it done so, it may have offered compensation at that stage.
Further, part of the resident’s complaint was that her daughter had fallen on the uneven floor and had sustained an injury. Under the landlord’s compensation policy at the time, it should have referred the alleged injury to its insurance team. The landlord’s failure to do so meant the resident missed the opportunity for a claim to be considered.
The resident asked to escalate her second complaint on 29 September 2021 and the landlord added the issues of the delayed shower room repairs the same day. The resident had told the landlord in her email that the mould was “dangerous” for the family. This should have caused the landlord to react and establish the risks. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so. Nor did the landlord respond to her complaint at stage 2.
The resident made a third complaint on 20 January 2022 about the shower room repairs and mould. Again, she said that the mould was dangerous and on 23 January 2022 she told the landlord she had sustained an injury when tiles fell on her foot. The landlord sent its response within its policy timescale. It explained the action it would take, gave details of how she could make a personal injury claim and offered compensation.
However, the landlord’s compensation policy at the time said that it would refer issues of personal injury to its insurance team. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
The evidence suggests that the landlord decided to escalate the resident’s earlier complaint (of July 2021) about the shower room repairs on 28 February 2022 because the repairs had still not been done by then. It is not clear why the resident’s complaint of 20 January 2022 had not caused the landlord to escalate the earlier complaint, given it was about the same matter.
It took the landlord over 3 months to assign the resident’s complaint escalation for investigation. This delay was not reasonable and the evidence suggests that the landlord had assigned the escalation due to the resident posting negative comments on its social media. This suggests that the landlord’s focus was on maintaining its public image rather than resolving the problems that the resident had.
However, once assigned, the landlord’s complaint handler was responsive to the resident’s contacts and gave her regular updates on progress. The complaint handler was often let down by colleagues and contractors not responding to her efforts to progress the repairs. For example, the landlord was not able to give its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 6 July 2022 because the complaint handler was trying to get updates from several colleagues and 2 different contractors.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 20 July 2022 which was 10 months after the resident had first asked for her complaint to be escalated. This delay was inappropriate and it was not reasonable that the landlord blamed the resident for the shower room repairs not being completed in time by the first contractor. The landlord did acknowledge that the delays in the shower room repairs were not acceptable, acknowledged delays in giving its complaint response and offered additional compensation.
However, its response did not address the damp and mould that the resident had been raising since her escalation request in September 2021. Further, its response that its building surveyor would carry out another survey of the uneven floors was inadequate. The landlord should have acknowledged how long the issue had been going on and explained why it had not been resolved. The landlord’s failure to do so suggests it had not adequately investigated this part of the resident’s complaint.
The resident tried to make a further complaint on 22 December 2022 about the landlord’s plan to remove the floors for further investigation. Although it initially logged this as a new complaint, the landlord’s records show the new complaint was quickly closed as the landlord still had the previous complaint case open. This is an example of how the landlord’s failings in progressing repairs caused it avoidable problems in managing complaints. The resident would not have made this complaint if the repairs had been resolved.
The landlord’s email to the resident of 3 February 2023 saying her complaint was closed at stage 2 but would stay open until the repairs were done caused confusion to the resident. The landlord should consider how it can better communicate the position when it had dealt with a complaint but the issues complained about remain unresolved.
Overall, it took the landlord almost a year (from 22 July 2021 to 20 July 2022) to complete its complaint process. The landlord did not meet the requirements of its complaint policies and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in respect of response timescales. Nor did it adequately address all the issues raised by the resident in its responses.
Further, the landlord’s complaint process did not put things right for the resident as the disrepair issues she complained about were not resolved. This meant the landlord was left with the resident’s complaint still open 15 months after it had sent its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaints.
The landlord gave £95 compensation in July 2022 for delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. It offered a further £100 on 15 August 2023 but it is not clear from the evidence whether it has paid this to the resident.
The Ombudsman does not consider this to be sufficient redress considering the extent of the landlord’s failings. We have ordered the landlord to pay £600 compensation. The landlord may deduct the £100 it offered on 15 August 2023 if it can evidence it has already paid this to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of uneven floors.
2. Reports of repairs to the shower room and hallway.
3. Reports of damp and mould.
4. Complaints.

Reasons

The landlord has not demonstrated that it took adequate action to investigate and resolve the cause of the uneven floors. This meant the disrepair remained unresolved more than 6 years after the resident had first reported it despite the landlord knowing it was a hazard.
The landlord’s failure to resolve the leak from the resident’s shower resulted in damp and mould. It had still not resolved the leak and other disrepair in the shower room and hallway 2 years after the resident had reported the problem.
The landlord did not follow its policy and procedure in responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It failed to carry out work recommended by its contractors resulting in the damp and mould still being unresolved.
The landlord did not adhere to its policies or the Code in handling the resident’s complaints from 22 July 2021. Its investigations were inadequate and its responses did not address all the issues the resident had raised. This meant the landlord’s complaint process did not resolve the resident’s complaints.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. The chief executive must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. The letter should acknowledge what went wrong and the impact this had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy of its letter.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £6,400. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £3,500 for the delays in investigating and resolving the cause of the uneven floors and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord may deduct the £700 it offered on 15 August 2023 if it can evidence that it has already paid it.
  2. £1,300 for its failure to resolve the disrepair in the shower room and hallway and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. £1,000 for its failure to resolve the damp and mould and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  4. £600 for the failings in its complaint handling and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord may deduct the £100 it offered on 15 August 2023 if it can evidence that it has already paid it.
Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Complete an adequate survey of the resident’s home to identify the repairs needed to resolve the uneven floors, leaking shower, and damp and mould. The survey should identify any other repairs needed which the landlord is responsible for. The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the survey report.
2. Prepare a schedule of work to be completed to the resident’s home including timescales for the anticipated start and completion of the repairs. The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the schedule of work.
3. Ensure its front line staff, including its social media team, are trained to recognise, and adequately respond to, potential safeguarding concerns.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident about the inadequate heating, and damp and mould that she has reported to be affecting her temporary home.