London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202332398)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202332398
London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)
26 September 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s:
- reports about damp and mould in the property;
- request for a mutual exchange.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident has an assignment of tenancy that started on 19 April 2021 following a mutual exchange. The property is described as a 2-bedroom house.
- The resident has advised there her son has severe eczema.
- On 9 March 2022, the resident reported that the bedroom window had a large gap and there was mould around the window. The resident also reported mould in the bathroom and living room. A mould wash was completed on 11 March 2022.
- The contractor decided that follow on works were required to replace missing pointing and cracks to the rear elevation (below the bathroom window) on 24 May 2022. This was completed on 14 July 2022.
- The resident made further reports of black mould in the bathroom, living room and bedroom on 29 September 2022. A mould wash was completed on 28 October 2022.
- The resident, along with 2 other residents, made a mutual exchange application on 25 September 2023. The application was refused on 28 September 2023. The landlord’s records show that the property was too small for the proposed incoming tenant.
- On 17 October 2023, the resident reported that there was black mould on the ceiling and walls in the bathroom, bedroom and living room skirting board. A mould wash was completed on 24 October 2023.
- The resident complained on 21 October 2023 that she did not feel listened to and that the landlord had failed to assist her. The resident stated that she had written to her Member of Parliament regarding the issues she was facing and the landlord’s decision to stop the mutual exchange progressing. The resident requested that the landlord assist her or provide an explanation. In addition, the resident advised that her son was registered disabled due to the severity of his eczema and the situation continued the longer she was left unheard.
- The landlord provided its complaint response on 25 October 2023. It advised that the property was inspected by its healthy homes team on 24 October 2023, and it was waiting to receive the report. Any follow-on works that had been identified would be carried out. The contact details for the healthy homes team was provided and it concluded that it had no evidence of a service failure. It was unable to address the resident’s concerns about the mutual exchange so that issue had been passed to its neighbourhood lead to respond to.
- On 12 December 2023, the resident escalated the complaint, stating that nobody had been in contact since the contractor attended. Within a fortnight of the mould wash, the mould had returned and she had been informed that the contractor would not reattend to resolve this. The resident provided pictures of the property. She advised on 2 January 2024 that her living conditions were having a negative impact on her son and she was yet to receive a response to her concerns.
- Following the Ombudsman’s contact with the landlord on 15 January 2024, it spoke to the resident on the following day. She gave reasons for the need for a mutual exchange, explaining that she wanted to alleviate overcrowding in the property. The landlord agreed to carry out an inspection.
- The landlord provided its final complaint response on 18 January 2024. It concluded that:
- It had arranged for another mould wash to be carried out and for a surveyor’s inspection to determine the cause of the mould. Any orders to resolve the situation would be raised as it was aware that the mould had returned despite washes being carried out. The landlord provided a copy of its ‘staying dry’ booklet which gave advice on the management of condensation, damp, and mould. It advised that claims for damage to belongings or personal injury fell outside of its complaint process and if the resident did not have home insurance, she could make a claim to its insurers.
- With regard to the mutual exchange, it advised that the reasons it could not proceed related to a third party so it could not provide additional information. It informed the resident that she could look for other properties by registering on the council’s housing list and provided the link to its website.
- It apologised for its delay and lack of communication when the resident tried to escalate the complaint. It made a compensation award of £440, broken down as: £240 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities in the resident’s household; £120 for the time and effort in resolving the complaint; £60 for poor communication regarding escalation; £20 for its delay in responding to the complaint.
- On the same day, the landlord raised the compensation payment and an inspection of the resident’s property.
Events after the complaint process ended.
- The resident chased the inspection on 12 February 2024 and 19 February 2024.
- On 20 February 2024, the landlord received a letter of claim regarding defective external walls and damp and mould in the hallway, living room, bathroom and bedrooms. The claim also included defective plasterwork throughout the property.
- The landlord’s repair records show that the surveyor inspection was cancelled on 16 April 2024. On 31 May 2024, the landlord organised a property survey to consider stained walls and water ingress.
- A schedule of works subsequently drawn up by the expert shows the following findings and recommendations:
- Defective external walls: works needed to remedy leaking gutters to rear elevation, causing damp and staining on wall outside living room, by clearing debris and repair to leaking joists. The brickwork also needed to be allowed to dry naturally.
- Damp and mould in the property: there was mould growth related to condensation around an external wall and party wall junction beside the entrance door. Damp staining and moisture readings in the living room related to leaking gutters and condensation. Once the gutters were repaired, a square metre of plastering was to be hacked off and replaced and the decoration made good.
- Damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom related to condensation and the management of heating and ventilation. It did not consider the plasterwork in the property was a ‘valid defect.’
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service. She expressed that, although mould washes had been completed over a 2-year period, the landlord had not investigated the reasons for the damp and mould occurring. If the mutual exchange had taken place, this would have resolved the overcrowding. The resident’s preferred outcome was for a surveyor to attend to resolve the damp and mould and for a mutual exchange approval.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
- The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
- be fair;
- put things right;
- learn from outcomes.
- This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property.
- The landlord has an obligation to maintain the property to a reasonable standard and respond to repairs in a reasonable timeframe.
- The resident reported that there was damp and mould in the property on 9 March 2022. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 11 March 2022 and work to repair the pointing below the bathroom window on 14 July 2022. The landlord completed the mould wash within its published standards. However, it took 51 days to complete the work to the pointing. This was not reasonable as the repair was completed outside of its 25-day repair standard.
- On 29 September 2022, the resident made a further report of black mould in the bathroom, living room and bedroom. A mould wash was completed on 28 October 2022. This took 29 working days and was therefore completed just outside of the landlord’s repair standard for non urgent repairs.
- It was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the mould washes and repair to the pointing had resolved the mould complained about, and further work was not necessary as it did not receive another report from the resident until 6 months later. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the report it received in March 2023 – of mould in the living room, front room, bedroom and stairs – as a new issue. A mould wash was completed within a reasonable timescale on 14 April 2023.
- There was another 6-month gap until October 2023 when the resident made a further report of black mould in the bathroom, bedroom, living room ceiling and walls. A mould wash was completed within 7 days on 24 October 2023. This was again conducted in a reasonable timescale.
- At this time, the resident queried the amount of mould washes that had been needed as the situation remained unresolved. In response, the landlord contacted its healthy homes team to request a report following their attendance. This was reasonable as the landlord has a responsibility to keep the property in repair and assess and identify the possible causes of the mould complained about. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek a diagnosis given the number of mould reports during 2022 to 2023.
- The landlord was informed that the mould in the property resulted from the condensation on cold areas around the windows and that the resident was responsible for maintaining and wiping down wet windows. In addition, the property required proper ventilation and adequate heating. The healthy homes team stated that it had not assessed that there was an underlying issue and if there was, a surveyor inspection would have been organised. The landlord considered the advice that it received and concluded that it would nevertheless arrange for a surveyor inspection. Obtaining a second opinion of the cause of the mould in the property was reasonable as this allowed it to satisfy itself that all the possible causes of the damp had been considered, including checking the fabric of the building for any defects.
- The landlord arranged to carry out the inspection of the property in February 2024. This was 24 working days after its final complaint response but more than 3 months after the healthy homes visit and therefore unreasonably delayed. The inspection of the property was subsequently cancelled and rearranged following the receipt of the letter of claim from the resident’s solicitor in February 2024. This extended the delay period.
- The schedule of works drawn up by the expert surveyor after the end of the landlord’s complaints process diagnosed fault to the guttering which had caused the mould to the entrance door and living room. It did not identify any defects to the hallway, bathroom and bedroom and advised that the resident needed to manage the condensation in the property by having adequate heating and ventilation.
- The landlord considered the service failures that it had identified and made a compensation award of £360. The compensation award recognised the distress, inconvenience and the time and trouble experienced by the resident. This was in accordance with its compensation policy which says that in such circumstances it may make a compensation offer. This Service’s Remedies Guidance says that awards between £100 to £600 reflect service failures which have adversely affected a resident. Therefore, the landlord’s apology and its compensation award is considered reasonable and proportionate for its service failures.
The landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange
- A mutual exchange allows a resident to move to another social housing property. The landlord is required to give its decision on the exchange within 42 days and consent cannot be unreasonably refused.
- The resident completed a mutual exchange application on 25 September 2023. The exchange involved 2 other residents. Section 4 of the landlord’s mutual exchange policy sets out the grounds for a refusal of a mutual exchange. The landlord’s records show that it sent the resident an email advising that the mutual exchange would not be progressed. A copy of the email has not been provided to this Service so there is no evidence of the explanation that was provided to the resident. This is not reasonable as a landlord should keep accurate records which allow it to respond effectively to resident’s concerns. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with adequate information to enable us to fully investigate matters referred to us and, in this instance, it failed to do so.
- The landlord’s internal communications in September 2023 gives the refusal reason as the property being too small for the proposed assignee and their household. However, in the landlord’s communication with the resident on 16 January 2024, the landlord gave the reason for the refusal as problems with the proposed assignee lease. As there was more than 1 party to the exchange, this may be correct. However, the different reasons shown in the landlord’s records, without stipulating which assignee they relate, to create ambiguity and confusion about the reason for the mutual exchange refusal. This is not reasonable as the landlord’s records should explain any decisions it has made with relevant reasons. It is noted that the resident has said she is aware of the reason for the refusal of the mutual exchange.
- Good communication from the landlord is imperative to provide reassurance to the resident that their concerns are being taken seriously and given the appropriate priority. The resident chased the landlord regarding the mutual exchange on 7 March 2023, 8 March 2023 and 27 October 2023 and it is not evident that the landlord liaised with the resident to explain any difficulties or manage her expectations. This was not reasonable.
- The landlord showed that it had considered other ways for the resident to find alternative accommodation. It spoke to its lettings and home manager and signposted the resident to register for Choice Based Lettings with a link to the council’s website. It is noted that the resident decided to undertake another mutual exchange attempt.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The landlord’s complaint procedure says that it will respond to complaints at its first stage within 10 working days and within 20 working days at its final stage.
- The resident complaint to the landlord on 21 October 2023 related to the 2 concerns she had – the condition of the property and the refusal of the mutual exchange. The landlord acted in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) when it spoke to the resident about her complaint on 24 October 2023.
- During the conversation, the landlord informed the resident that it could not answer her enquiry regarding the mutual exchange and would refer her concerns to a colleague. While the referral was made to the colleague, the resident did not receive a response about the mutual exchange. There is no evidence that there was any monitoring to check that this element of the resident’s complaint had been answered or addressed. This is not reasonable as the complaint process should ensure that the totality of resident’s concerns are answered promptly and that follow up actions are monitored to completion.
- The landlord answered part of the resident’s complaint within its published timescales on 25 October 2023. The lack of response to her concerns about the mutual exchange contributed to the resident escalating the complaint on 12 December 2023. The landlord’s records show that as the complaint investigator was on leave, the complaint was assigned to another officer to deal with. As the resident did not receive a response, this Service contacted the landlord on 15 January 2024, requesting that it respond by 22 January 2024.
- The landlord provided a final complaint response to the resident dated 18 January 2023. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the letter should be dated 18 January 2024. The accuracy of landlord’s communication is important, however it is acknowledged that this was a shortcoming as the incorrect date was an administrative error and unlikely to have caused inconvenience.
- It is appropriate that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the health of her family by informing her that such matters are dealt with by its insurers. It set out the information that would be considered and provided a contact email address for the resident to use if she wanted to make such a claim. This is a matter better considered by an insurance process and the landlord’s advice was reasonable.
- The landlord made a compensation award of £80 for the failures in its complaint handling, broken down as £60 for the inconvenience she experienced in escalating the complaint and £20 for the delay in providing its complaint response. This was appropriate to recognise that it had failed to acknowledge her escalation request within a reasonable timescale and that it had answered her complaint outside of its complaint handling timescales. The overall level of compensation is within the range that this Service’s Remedies Guidance recommends for service failure that occurred for a short period of time. This offer of redress was therefore proportionate.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of reports about damp and mould in the property.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a mutual exchange.
- In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the failures in its complaints handling.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
- Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
- Pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its communication failures in the handling of the resident’s request for a mutual exchange.
- The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance to this Service with the above orders within the timescale set out above.
Recommendations
- If it not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £440 compensation that it proposed in its final complaint response for the failures in its handling of the damp and mould reports and associated complaint. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decisions are made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
- If it has not already done so, the landlord is to contact the resident to arrange a convenient appointment for the guttering works identified in the expert’s schedule of works.