London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202333840)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333840

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 October 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered. 

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has stated that she has a musculoskeletal disorder which is exacerbated by cold temperatures.
  2. The resident reported recurring damp and mould in her living room and bedroom to her landlord on 6 January 2023. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 30 January 2023. The report found that there were indications of excessive moisture on some of the walls in the living room. It said it could not find any leaks or cause for the moisture and said further investigation was needed. It advised the resident regarding ventilation and heating the property. It said there was mould in the living room and kitchen but the resident had cleaned most of it off.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 October 2023. She said she was not happy about the ongoing issues with damp in her living room. She said extractor fans should have been fitted in the kitchen and bathroom, but they had not been done. She also said the flooring in the living room was wet.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on the same day. It apologised for the resident having to raise a complaint. It said the original job for the fans was closed down due to the contractor needing to attend to make it safe before the additional works could be completed. The landlord said it had raised a job for the extractor fans for 28 November 2023. It said it had also raised a job for a plumber to attend and to inspect the property on 16 November 2023. It also said it could not reimburse the resident for damages to her flooring or personal belongings. The landlord provided its insurance details for if she wished to make a claim.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She queried what the appointment for the plumber was for and said she wanted compensation for the distress caused. She said she had medical conditions and keeping the property well-ventilated all year round was taking its toll on her. She said parts of the property were very cold and she just wanted someone to get rid of the damp and mould. She confirmed on 8 November 2023 that she would like to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 February 2024 and stated the following:
    1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
    2. It thanked her for providing information about her health conditions and how she felt the repair issues impacted them. It said additional support indicators were on her account to allow for a priority on repairs. It provided its insurance details should the resident wish to make a claim on health grounds or for damaged personal belongings.
    3. It accepted that the resident had waited too long for some of the repairs in the previous years. It said it would account for that in its compensation.
    4. It said a report from a damp and mould inspection found that there was an inconsistent heat pattern on certain dates in the living room. It asked the resident to confirm that she was keeping the heat to a steady 17°C in the room. It said the heat would prevent damp and mould. It provided further information regarding assistance with fuel costs.
    5. It said it had reviewed various reports, correspondence, and repair details for the resident’s property. It outlined the action taken since 2019 following a legal disrepair claim by the resident for damp and mould in the property. It noted that in January 2023, it was supposed to check externally for any necessary preventative works for water penetration, and it could see that no action had been taken.
    6. It had arranged for an inspection to take place by its building surveyor on 13 February 2024. It said the surveyor would pay particular attention to the works previously carried out by its contractor and the suggestion that liners should be laid in the living room to prevent the penetrating damp. It said the surveyor would check for airbricks and that the ventilation in the room was sufficient.
    7. It said it would ask the surveyor to look at damp in the kitchen, under the floorboards, and check who was responsible for replacing boarding to the living room floor. It said it had booked a job with its drainage contractor to quote for a liner. It said it asked them to check under the floorboards in the living room to check for water ingress. It said this was subject to not damaging the resident’s flooring. It said the follow-on works would be dependent on the outcome of the surveyor’s report.
    8. It acknowledged the reports that the resident felt some of the boarding in the flooring area required replacing due to the ongoing damp issues. It said it had added a goodwill payment in the compensation to put towards the cost of new flooring. It reiterated that the resident could claim through its insurance for damages.
    9. It had arranged for a dehumidifier to be provided to the resident and the compensation would include the running costs for 19 days. It asked the resident to run the unit during the day and provide the surveyor with photos of the water collected. It said it would allocate the case to a customer liaison officer to monitor the repairs to completion.
    10. It upheld the complaint and offered £924.13 in compensation. It said some of the compensation would be offset against the resident’s current arrears.
  7. The resident was initially satisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, the resident brought her complaint back to the Ombudsman as she said the issues remained ongoing and the proposed work had not been completed. She said the damp was mainly in the living room and despite surveyors attending, she had chased the landlord, and no action had been taken. The resident said it was impacting her health and she is unable to use the living room. She said she would like more compensation for the length of time it was taking to resolve her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has referred to her health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has been living with and complaining about damp and mould over a lengthy period of time, which likely caused considerable distress and inconvenience. However, paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme outlines that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The resident raised her formal complaint in October 2023. As such, this assessment has focussed on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from October 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

  1. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which include damp and mould, and excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents.
  2. It was not disputed by the landlord that there were delays in its handling of the damp and mould in the property. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, and it also acknowledged that the resident’s vulnerabilities had not been taken into account. It outlined the next steps it would take to help to resolve the issue and offered compensation. This assessment will consider whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord’s records show the multiple visits and repairs carried out to the resident’s property following her reports of damp and mould. However, as stated by the landlord and resident, the damp in the living room remained unresolved. The steps outlined in the landlord’s stage 2 response were reasonable steps to take to assist with establishing the root cause of the damp. It also considered the history of the issue and what had worked in other rooms.
  4. It is disappointing that the resident has since stated that apart from the surveyor attending, no further action has been taken in relation to resolving the issue. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the surveyor’s report following the stage 2 response and therefore it is difficult to determine if its actions were reasonable, in all the circumstances. An order will be made for the landlord to provide the findings from the surveyor’s visit.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that in its stage 2 response the landlord arranged for a dehumidifier to address the potential moisture in the resident’s home. The dehumidifier was a positive action to take in the interim to help prevent excess moisture and it was reasonable for the landlord to reimburse the running costs until the visit from the surveyor. However, in the absence of the surveyor’s findings, it is difficult to determine whether the overall response to the issue was appropriate. If the resident required the dehumidifier for longer due to the lack of action and conclusion from the landlord, then the landlord should consider whether it will reimburse her for any further running costs.
  6. While the landlord acknowledged that there were delays in its response to damp and mould in the property, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered its response to the resident’s reports that the property was cold. The resident reported on 26 October 2023 that the property was very cold and that keeping the property well ventilated all year round was taking a toll on her. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports or took any action to ensure that the property was warm enough for the resident. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  7. Following her reports, the landlord should have considered a risk assessment and what immediate measures it could take, such as temporary heaters, to ensure the property was habitable for the resident. It is a failing that the landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she had to reside in a property which she felt was excessively cold throughout the winter months.
  8. In its stage 2 response the landlord referred to an indication that there was an inconsistent heating pattern of the property. It was reasonable to ask the resident to confirm if she was consistently heating the property and to provide further information around accessing support with this. The landlord has not provided evidence to the Ombudsman of it following up on its question to the resident. It was also unclear what the next steps would be, such as a heat loss survey, if the resident confirmed that she had been consistently heating the property.
  9. As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman has considered the energy performance certificate (EPC) for the resident’s property. The most recent EPC rating for the property (which expired in 2021) is at level F, which is concerning. The Ombudsman acknowledges that work has been undertaken in the resident’s property since then and the EPC may have improved. However, if it has not, then the landlord should consider whether the reasons causing the property to be rated an F, could also be impacting the issues with heating the property and the damp and mould. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to arrange for a new EPC for the property. Upon receipt of the new EPC, the landlord must set out what areas it could improve and provide its position against this, taking into account what would be reasonable, in the circumstances. 
  10. To conclude, the steps outlined in the landlord’s stage 2 response to address the damp and mould in the property were reasonable. The landlord also appropriately acknowledged the delays in its handling of the damp and mould and offered a reasonable amount of compensation in line with the identified failures. However, it is a failing that no further action appears to have been taken in relation to the damp and mould following the surveyor’s inspection. The landlord also did not identify all its failures, particularly in relation to the resident’s reports regarding the property being cold. As such, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure in which it responds to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that where a customer is not able to use a room in their home because of a repair issue that is its responsibility, which causes prolonged and unreasonable disruption, it will consider a partial refund of rent. It states that the customer’s specific situation or vulnerabilities must be considered when making the offer.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on the same day as the complaint. The stage 2 response was provided to the resident 3 months after her request to escalate the complaint, which was not appropriate, nor in line with its policy. The landlord did however acknowledge this in its stage 2 response. It was reasonable for it to outline the reason for the delay and consider the impact on the resident. £300 of the compensation was to reflect the resident’s time and trouble in getting the complaint resolved and its poor complaint handling. This was also reasonable.
  4. The stage 2 response provided was detailed and evidenced that the complaint regarding damp and mould had been thoroughly investigated. The landlord defined the outstanding complaint and applied appropriate remedies where it accepted it had gotten things wrong. This was in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord offered £924.13 in compensation and broke it down to outline how it had reached that amount. The amount offered was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is considerable. It was positive that the landlord also provided its insurance details should the resident wish to submit a claim for damages.
  5. While the landlord should have also acknowledged that it failed to respond appropriately to the excess cold, the proposed remedies in the stage 2 response may have also assisted with that issue. It is therefore not surprising that the resident initially felt the response was satisfactory and accepted the offer of redress. The landlord assured the resident that repairs would be prioritised, that she would have a dedicated contact, and that action would be taken. It is disappointing that the landlord did not follow through with its actions and the resident then had to bring the complaint to the Ombudsman. The complaints procedure was an opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident, and it was a failing that it did not do so.
  6. As such, the Ombudsman finds it reasonable to award further compensation considering the impact on the resident until the present day. The landlord must pay an additional £1,286 in compensation which is broken down as follows:
    1. £1,036 for the resident’s loss of use and enjoyment of her living room. This is based on approximately 15% of the resident’s rent from 26 October 2023 when the resident reported that the room was very cold in the winter. It has been calculated up until the week of this determination.
    2. £250 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the landlord’s poor handling of the issue following its stage 2 response.
  7. Due to the resident reporting that the situation remains ongoing following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord’s handling of the complaint was reasonable or put things right for the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must provide the outcome of the surveyor and drainage contractor’s visits which took place on 13 February 2024. If follow on repairs were identified, it must produce an action plan with defined timescales for the work to be completed. The landlord should also include its position on dry lining in the living room and show consideration has been made to the resident’s reported vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord must arrange for a new EPC for the property. Upon receipt of the new EPC, the landlord must set out what areas it could improve and provide its position against this, taking into account what would be reasonable, in the circumstances.  
  3. If it has not already done so, the landlord must provide the name of the officer who it said it would allocate the case to, to monitor the repairs to completion.
  4. The landlord must pay the resident a further £1,286 in compensation. The compensation should be treated separately from any existing financial agreements between the landlord and resident. To clarify, it should not be used to offset arrears, unless requested by the resident.
  5. The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider whether it is responsible for any further costs related to the running of a dehumidifier in the resident’s property.