London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202317798)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202317798
London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)
29 November 2024
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
Background
- The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
- In February 2021, the landlord raised a repair for a report of black mould in a bedroom going on for several years and causing health issues. The same or the following month, the landlord’s damp contractor visited and, according to the resident, identified there was too much moisture content in the walls.
- In April 2021, the resident chased the landlord for an update, after which it internally requested and update and emailed information to the resident about how to prevent damp and mould.
- In August 2021, the landlord’s damp contractor attended to clean mould to bedroom walls. They said that the damp issue was caused by the walls holding a lot of water, which was a possible structural issue. Following this, the landlord raised a repair to investigate the brickwork for causes of water ingress on external walls, after a damp meter reading of 33 percent. The landlord also raised a follow on repair for blown window seals and damaged plaster around windowsills, which was attended in November 2021.
- In December 2021, a contractor attended for the brickwork and reported that the pointing was found to be fine.
- In January 2022, a survey inspected after reports that mould was still coming back. The surveyor said that a cavity wall to the right elevation required an intrusive survey, the loft insulation needed to be checked, and a thermostat needed to be added to the heating system. The same month, the landlord noted that the resident said the contractor need to re-attend for the kitchen and bedroom windows, and the landlord noted that new follow on works raised.
- In February 2022, contractors attended for the request to install a thermostat, but the resident says the operative did not install one as they did not feel it was required. The same month, the resident’s account says a mould wash was done.
- In April and June 2022, the resident chased for an update. In June 2022, the landlord asked for repairs to be raised for a roofer to inspect the loft and report on the insulation, and for a bricklayer to remove a brick and report on the cavity condition. In late June 2022, a repair was raised to inspect the loft, which was done in August 2022, and in mid July 2022, a repair was raised to inspect the brickwork.
- In mid October 2022, the landlord received correspondence from a contractor, saying that there was a category 1 hazard in respect to a heavy presence of damp and mould to a bedroom and living room. Following this, it requested for repairs to be raised.
- On 31 October 2022, the resident complained. He was unhappy that damp had not been resolved. He raised concerns about costs he had incurred that included a dehumidifier, a window vacuum, and mould proof paint.
- The same day, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It noted that a damp and mould contractor had attended and advised of follow on works to remedy the mould. It said a repair raised to its brickwork team was scheduled on 8 December 2022 and should alleviate issues. It said it could not move this appointment and apologised for the delay. It noted that the resident wanted to be reimbursed for costs of running dehumidifier, and said it would calculate these if the resident confirmed when this was received and returned.
- In November 2022, a mould wash was carried out, and a repair was raised to asbestos test all the walls and ceilings of the property, which was recorded completed on 6 December 2022. On 8 December 2022, the contractor attended for the repair raised in July 2022 to inspect the brickwork. The resident says that the contractor did not remove the brickwork to inspect the cavity wall insulation, as they said that drillholes indicated there was cavity insulation.
- On 9 December 2022, the resident requested escalation of the complaint. He said that removal of a brick to check cavity wall insulation did not happen. He raised concerns that investigation of the moisture in walls had come to halt. He did not feel that covering dehumidifier costs was sufficient. Following this, the landlord reviewed the 8 December 2022 visit and noted that a surveyor had been requested.
- On 11 April 2023, a damp contractor inspected. They noted mould in 3 bedrooms, a bathroom and living room. They noted there were low moisture readings of 16 percent on a bedroom wall. They noted that a rear gutter seemed to be blocked and window seals were blown and needed repair. They said a possible cause of moisture/condensation was inadequate heating temperatures, draughty window frames and crumbling wall plaster that let in cold air. They noted that mould treatment was required but this would be on hold until plastering was done. They also noted that the property may benefit from a thermostat to help the resident maintain a constant heating temperature, reduce indoor moisture content and prevent mould growth. Their report noted that repairs were raised for the gutter, window seals and plastering.
- In mid April 2023, plastering works were scheduled for 26 April 2023, thermostat works were booked for 3 May 2023, and window seal works were booked for 27 June 2023. The resident confirms that plastering works were completed and involved thermal boarding and plastering of bedroom walls.
- The landlord’s records advise that gutter works were completed on 26 May 2023 or 23 June 2023, and on 27 July 2023, a new repair was raised for an inspection of the living room, hall and stairs as window seals had blown (after an initial repair raised for this on 26 June 2023 was cancelled).
- On 8 August 2023, the resident said that some works had been done, but windows works were still outstanding, and damp was affecting walls in the hallway, stairs, and downstairs cupboard. The same day, the landlord raised a further repair and confirmed that an inspection for the window seals was scheduled for 25 August 2023.
- On 15 August 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It noted discussions with the resident on 8 August 2023, and restated an inspection for the window seals was arranged for 25 August 2023. It apologised that the complaint had taken 9 months to resolve. It awarded £940, which comprised £200 for the stage 2 delay, £100 for communication, £540 for distress and inconvenience, and £100 for time and inconvenience. It noted that the resident had accepted this.
- On 10 October 2023, the resident responded. He disputed that he had accepted the compensation. He said that his complaint had been ongoing for 10 years, not 9 months as stated, and it was an unreasonable offer for the period he and his family had to deal with damp and mould in the property. He noted that the landlord had previously said compensation would be considered when he was satisfied with the works that had been carried out. He noted that work was still being carried out so the effects of the repairs were not apparent. He said he had made countless calls to the landlord to assess water damage and health concerns, and prior to the recent plastering work, issues with the property had not been thoroughly investigated. He noted that he had been forced to carry out repairs himself, investing time and money in an attempt to make home more habitable, and having heating, dehumidifier running and windows open had been costly and counterproductive. He said that the compensation breakdown had not taken this into account and barely covered the materials purchased over the past 10 years.
- On 6 November 2023, the landlord provided a follow up stage 2 response. It detailed events from when the damp contractor had attended on 27 April 2023. It noted that an inspection for blown window seals was arranged for 25 August 2023, and it had chased this internally. It said it had also requested a further inspection of damp and mould after which any required works would be scheduled. It asked the resident to supply details about when he received and returned the dehumidifier so it could look to reimburse him for this. It said it was evident that the cause of damp and mould was not taken into consideration, enquiries could have been handled more effectively, and there were delays in response. It apologised for this and awarded £60.
- The same month, the landlord told the resident that after an operative had attended on 25 August 2023, double glazed units had been ordered and it would contact him to arrange an appointment when these arrived.
- In late February 2024, the resident noted steps he was taking to combat mould while remaining repairs were awaited, and raised concerns about costs.
- In March 2024, the landlord noted that since the damp contractor visited in April 2023, all repairs except the windows had been completed, and an inspection for the windows had been chased. It noted that no further reports had been received since this. It noted that a mould treatment could be offered to the resident if required, and if there were any day to day repairs these needed to be raised to customer services. It indicates that attendance for the window seals was scheduled in April 2024 but the resident asked to reschedule this.
- The resident says that window panels were replaced and works for blown window seals have been ongoing over the past year, with contractors last attending in October or November 2024, after which windows are less draughty but still steam up with lots of water. He says he has since been informed that the windows are eligible for replacement but has not received dates yet.
- The resident says that thermal board was installed during plastering works, since when bedroom mould issues have improved, but he lacks confidence that underlying problems with moisture have been addressed. He says he still cleans black mould from in various areas, wallpaper is peeling in the hallway due to damp, water was coming in through brickwork around windows in areas such as the landing, and black mould was always in a cupboard. He says he runs an air purifier along with a dehumidifier, which he says extracts 2 litres of water every 2 days. He says he has been given advice about opening windows and keeping heating on, but feels this is counterintuitive and lacks confidence in contractors.
- The resident says that the cavity insulation was not inspected as an operative did not believe this was necessary due to signs cavity insulation was installed. He also says that a thermostat was not installed, as it was believed this was not required due to radiators having individual controls that could be adjusted.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould
- The resident complained from October 2022 about a lack of resolution to damp at the property, and raised concerns about costs he had incurred that included a dehumidifier, a window vacuum, and mould proof paint.
- The landlord said in its October 2022 stage 1 response that a brickwork appointment on 8 December 2022 should alleviate issues, and that it would calculate dehumidifier costs on receipt of information from the resident. In its August 2023 stage 2 response and November 2023 follow up, the landlord referred to steps to inspect the window seals, apologised that the complaint had taken 9 months to resolve and awarded £1,000 in total. While this was positive, the evidence shows that there have been events relevant to the complaint from at least February 2021, which the landlord did not satisfactorily acknowledge.
- The resident evidently raised previous concerns about damp and mould arising from water ingress, and the evidence shows that high moisture levels were identified by the landlord’s damp contractor around February 2021. However, it took until November 2021 for a contractor to inspect the pointing, around 9 months later. The pointing was later considered to be fine, but the resident told the landlord about the findings in April 2021, which it should have followed up sooner.
- The landlord’s surveyor inspected in January 2022 and identified that a thermostat needed to be added to the heating system. The landlord’s records say a thermostat installation appointment was attended in February 2022, but it is understood one was not installed. The January 2022 inspection identified that the loft insulation needed to be checked. The loft inspection was not raised until June 2022, after chasing from the resident, and the loft was not inspected until August 2022. This was 7 months after this was identified in January 2022 as required.
- The January 2022 inspection also identified that a cavity wall to the right elevation required an intrusive survey. The inspection was not raised until June 2022, and was not attended until December 2022, 11 months after it was identified required. The contractor then reportedly did not believe it necessary to remove brickwork to inspect the wall, as there were signs cavity insulation was installed. This was not in line with the original instruction to report on the cavity condition and level of insulation. The landlord later noted that the contractor recommended a surveyor visit, but it is not evident this happened. The lack of investigation of the cavity wall in line with the surveyor’s instructions is not satisfactory, nor is the lack of evidence for the landlord’s consideration of this, to show that it agreed further action was not necessary.
- The landlord received some October 2022 contractor correspondence that there was a category 1 hazard at the property, due to a heavy presence of damp and mould in a bedroom and living room. The landlord raised a repair and its damp and mould contractor attended in April 2023. This was 6 months after the correspondence, and 4 months after the December 2022 visit. The time it took for the landlord’s damp contractor to attend does not seem reasonable given that the report described a category 1 hazard.
- The April 2023 damp contractor noted a lower moisture reading of 16 percent to a bedroom wall and recommended repairs for the gutter, plastering, window seals and thermostat. The thermostat was stated to be potentially beneficial to help maintain a constant temperature, reduce indoor moisture and prevent mould growth. The landlord completed the gutter and plastering works in a reasonably timely manner, and the resident confirms window works have been done over a period, but the thermostat works remain outstanding. The landlord scheduled an appointment in May 2023, but the operative reportedly did not consider that a thermostat was needed due to radiators having controls.
- The lack of installation of a thermostat is not satisfactory, given the lack of evidence for the landlord’s consideration of this to show that it agreed further action was not necessary, and given a thermostat was recommended at least 2 times. The landlord could have had clearer regard about this and other areas given it was a complaint. The April 2023 damp survey noted a lower moisture reading of 16 percent to a bedroom wall, in comparison with an August 2021 33 percent reading. The landlord could have shown it gave more regard to the previous higher readings and the lack of the cavity wall inspection, and if appropriate, provided greater reassurance about how current actions were considered appropriate to resolve current issues evident.
- The landlord’s October 2022 stage 1 response referred to the cavity insulation appointment as the only action being taken for damp and mould issues, and said the appointment would help alleviate the damp and mould issues. This did not reflect that the brickwork appointment was to investigate rather than carry out any practical works. The landlord said in its November 2023 follow up response that it had requested a further damp and mould inspection, but it is not evident that a further damp and mould inspection was raised and carried out. The outcomes and actions for the windows is also unsatisfactorily unclear, although the resident confirms window works have been done at points and that the windows will be replaced as part of major works.
- The evidence shows that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould was not satisfactory. It does not show it had a clear approach to the damp and mould that was clearly communicated to the resident. There were delays in progress after various reports, and there were recommendations such as the cavity wall inspection and thermostat installation that never happened. It does not show it gave sufficient regard to October 2022 contractor correspondence referring to a category 1 hazard, or December 2022 health concerns raised by the resident. It does not show that there was sufficient management of issues before or after the complaint. It was also limited in its complaint investigation, and its responses focused on delays over the 9 months from when the resident complained in October 2022, when there were issues and delays before then.
- In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord was positive to acknowledge issues and award compensation, this did not go far enough to acknowledge the issues with its handling. It is understandable that issues such as delays, communication, and commitments not being met without clear reasons, will have undermined the resident’s confidence in whether the landlord was effectively resolving the damp and mould issues. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in its response about the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
- The resident is unhappy with the compensation offered by the landlord as he does not feel it reflects his costs for damp issues over 10 years, for items such as mould treatment materials, a window vacuum, a dehumidifier and the running costs of these. The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to reimburse the resident for his expenditure over 10 years. We expect complaints to be about issues that occurred less than 12 months before the complaint was made, and the Ombudsman does not make definitive and legally binding decisions about liability or negligence and the impact on finances. Initially, it is not uncommon for dehumidifiers to be used to manage a home’s humidity, and the reported extracted amount of 2 litres of water every 2 days does not seem excessive.
- The landlord’s policy obligates it to consider reimbursement of alleged costs incurred due to recent service failings. The landlord’s responses and resident’s account indicates it is reasonably seeking to consider this aspect. The resident has the option to provide evidence for the landlord to consider about his incurred costs, and he has the option to seek independent advice and consider making a liability claim against the landlord, if he holds it responsible for costs over the past 10 years.
- The Ombudsman does consider it appropriate to order the landlord to pay a further £600, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its unacknowledged failings. This reflects amounts applicable in our remedies guidance for a maladministration finding where an offer was not proportionate to failings identified by our investigation.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
Orders and recommendations
- The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £600 compensation. This is in addition to the £1,000 total it offered, of which it should pay any amounts remaining if it has not already.
- The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, arrange a joint survey with its surveyor and its damp specialist. This should include an assessment of whether an inspection of the cavity wall is necessary, an assessment of whether a thermostat is necessary, and an assessment of issues in areas such as the hallway and landing. It should then write to the resident within 4 weeks of receiving their report, confirming the outcome, any actions being taken and by when. It should confirm how any identified works will be monitored to ensure they are completed in a timely and satisfactory manner, and confirm a communication plan with the resident until any works are completed. It should also provide clear information and explanation about any action the resident can take to mitigate against damp and mould issues.
- The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident to obtain and consider evidence of his alleged incurred costs in respect to the damp and mould since February 2021. It is then recommended to write to the resident and set out its position on reimbursing him, ensuring any decision is in line with its compensation policy.
- The landlord is recommended to review the status of the major works to renew the windows, and confirm to the resident in writing when these will be done.
- The landlord is recommended to ensure that it considers recent history of issues such as damp and mould when responding to complaints about these, rather than just current repairs that have been raised.
- The landlord is recommended to consider if current processes allow surveyor and contractor recommendations to be progressed, managed and monitored in a sufficiently effective and timely way.