London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202346001)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346001

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

21 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:
    1. the resident’s reports of leaks and subsequent damp and mould.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident held a temporary licence to occupy a 1-bedroom first-floor flat commencing in October 2018. The landlord is a leaseholder of the building. The resident has health conditions including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. The resident moved out of the property in May 2024.
  2. Around December 2022, the resident reported that water was entering the property from the roof and balcony. On 16 January 2023, the resident made a further report of water ingress. The landlord raised a work order and noted stones were blocking drainage to the waste pipe outlet located at the end of the balcony.
  3. Around 20 February 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said he had been affected by the issues for 3 years and felt despite previous reports he had to start again. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 February 2023. It apologised that the water ingress from the balcony had not been resolved and acknowledged that this had dated back to 2020. It said a new job was raised and its contractor would make contact to arrange an appointment. Following this appointment, they would advise on the next steps.
  4. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 28 February 2023. He said that there was still water ingress causing damp and mould. He added despite several contractors attending, the matters remained unresolved. He wanted a surveyor to establish the root cause of the problem and felt compensation should be awarded for the length of time taken to complete the repairs and his efforts to chase work on several occasions.
  5. The landlord arranged a work order on 28 February 2023 for its contractor to carry out an assessment of the property following reports that the whole property was affected by mould. On 24 March 2023, its contractor carried out an assessment and completed a mould wash. They found the down waste pipe and flashing needed repairing and issues with pebbles in the gully. They also noted a potential issue with the damp proof course (DPC), an indication of excessive moisture in the living room, and noted visible mould in the bedroom.
  6. Following this assessment, the landlord raised various work orders on 17 April 2023 to address the flashing on balcony and internal water ingress. It also raised a work order to address the “inadequate gully”, down waste pipe and to install a French drain. The flashing works appeared to be completed on 9 May 2023. On 17 May 2023, the landlord inspected the balcony paving slabs. On 11 June 2023, the landlord attended and carried out some works to the balcony and inside the property. The next day, the landlord attended to resolve the down waste pipe and gully but was unable to gain access. It subsequently closed the work order on 20 June 2023.
  7. In January 2024, the resident reported an uncontainable leak. He said that when it rained the guttering and gullies became blocked causing the balcony to flood which in turn caused water ingress into the property. On 10 January 2024, the resident asked to be decanted. The landlord advised it would carry out a roof inspection on 1 February 2024. The landlord’s surveyor attended the roof inspection on 8 February 2024, but its records state they were unable to gain access. The surveyor observed rainwater pouring down onto the balcony and that there was a hole in the brickwork. They also noted there were water stains on the wall above and around the skirting.
  8. On 5 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It apologised that there were delays and errors in booking jobs and explained that it was not the freeholder of the building. It said that therefore no external repair jobs should have been considered by the landlord as they were the responsibility of the freeholder but apologised that it had not identified this until now. It did note, however, that it was responsible for internal repairs and acknowledged the works may have impacted the resident’s medical conditions. It provided details for the freeholder and its liability insurer. With respect to the resident’s request to move, it signposted him to external organisations and provided information to support the resident to enable a medical move.
  9. It had since emailed the freeholder regarding external repairs and supplied an action plan to address the issues. now. It said the freeholder had visited the property on 1 March 2024 and found there was an area of brickwork with a large hole. It provided an action plan to resolve the matter and the freeholder had arranged for all works to be dealt with from the beginning of March 2024. It upheld the complaint and offered £880 made up of £200 for poor complaint handling, £130 as a gesture of goodwill for the loss of personal items, and £550 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities and the time and effort taken.
  10. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 13 March 2024. He explained there was mould and damp throughout and he now lived in the kitchen. The landlord provided a dehumidifier on 22 March 2024. Subsequently, the resident advised the Service that the council had offered him another property and he moved out in late May 2024, but had lost belongings due to mould damage. He remained unhappy as he said the landlord did not communicate effectively nor did it carry out repairs promptly. He added the landlord had no regard for his welfare and did not seem to consider his vulnerabilities. As a resolution, he is seeking further compensation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The resident reported that the leaks and water ingress had taken place for a number of years. Indeed, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the resident raised questions about this in 2020. While the Ombudsman appreciates this may be the case, there have been historical reports of leaks and issues with the balcony between 2019 and 2021 which have not been progressed through the landlord’s complaints process.
  2. In line with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The resident made a formal complaint about this matter in February 2023. Accordingly, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from around February 2022 (12 months before the formal complaint) until its final response of 5 March 2024 and any commitments it made. However, events outside this period may be referred to for contextual background. 
  3. The resident advised that the damp and mould had a detrimental impact on his health which he felt was exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to carry out repairs promptly. While this may be the case, it is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused.

The resident’s reports of leaks and subsequent damp and mould

  1. Where the landlord is the freeholder of the building, it has an obligation to maintain the structure and exterior of the home. However, in this case the landlord was the leaseholder of the resident’s dwelling. It confirmed in its stage 2 response that the freeholder was responsible for the external and communal repairs. It is concerning it took the landlord a considerable amount of time, well over 1 year, before it identified this. However, under Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord still had an obligation to ensure that the property was fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, particularly as it had received reports of damp and mould in February 2023.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy dated May 2023 states it will consider a range of interventions to tackle and, where possible, eliminate damp and mould. It provides examples such as mould washes and regular monitoring of the situation with follow up calls and additional visits, where appropriate. Following a report of damp or mould, an assessment of the property will be agreed at a mutually convenient time within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem.
  3. The assessment will identify the underlying cause of the damp and mould within the property and provide the resident with guidance on managing this. Any remedial works identified will be recorded and raised within 10 working days of the assessment. The Ombudsman recognises that this policy was not available at the time of the resident’s initial damp and mould report but it may be referenced throughout the report as a sensible guide. Additionally, in the landlord’s repair policy states routine day to day repairs should be completed in an average of 25 calendar days. It also adds it may adjust its service standards for vulnerable residents where a delay would put them at risk because of their condition.
  4. The resident reported concerns about water ingress from the balcony in December 2022 and January 2023. The landlord acted promptly by arranging a work order for brickwork repair. While the landlord attempted to assist the resident with this, it is noted that the repair did not take place within 25 calendar days as per its repair policy. Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould in February 2023, the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policy by arranging for its contractor to attend to identify the underlying cause and provided guidance on managing this. This took place within 20 working days of the report. Its contractor attended on 24 March 2023, identified a number of root causes, and carried out a mould wash. This was a satisfactory initial approach and the landlord acted in line with its policy.
  5. From its contractors assessment, they considered the cause of the issue to be structural and recommended a number of works including downpipe repairs and DPC repairs. Further, it noted the balcony had a possible breach with the flashing. After the assessment, the landlord should have raised remedial works with the freeholder within 10 working days. But, at this time, the landlord led the resident to believe that it would manage the repairs, so it was fair for the resident to expect the landlord to have acted in accordance with its repair timescales. According to the assessment, it raised works regarding the DPC on 31 March 2023 and works regarding the down waste pipe on 24 March 2023. However, these did not feature of the landlord’s repair history and there was no evidence that any DPC works took place. This is concerning as the assessment indicated there may be a possible failure with this.
  6. The above may indicate underlying issues with the landlord’s record keeping and it is of concern that there are no additional memos or notes to accompany the completion details of each repair. Although the landlord provided its repair and case history records, these lacked sufficient detail for the Service to understand what the landlord did and when. In line with our recent spotlight report “On the record: Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management” of May 2023, the landlord should have a robust record keeping system to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of, and responses to complaints and its delivery of operational service. No orders or recommendations have been made in this respect, as similar orders have been made in other landlord cases.
  7. The landlord raised further work orders on 17 April 2023 which included repairs to the flashing in the brickwork, addressing the drainage issue, and installation of a French drain. The flashing work appears to have taken place on 9 May 2023. However, this was not completed to a satisfactory standard and it needed to be done again as the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response. Works to the balcony appeared to be completed by 11 June 2023. This was over 145 calendar days after the work order was raised and was significantly outside its policy timescale for routine repairs. In any case, as the landlord was not the freeholder it was not its responsibility to undertake the repairs to the building, but rather, to bring the works to the freeholder’s attention to be completed promptly. Had it done so once it discovered the issues, this matter may have been resolved quicker.
  8. On 22 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to stop the work – he said an operative removed skirting which exposed a damp wall. Although he was told by the landlord that its contractors would return on 1 June 2023 to carry out works to internal walls, he explained that as he suffers from COPD he could not be in the property while the works took place. In the event of severe damp and mould, a resident may be decanted to temporary alternative accommodation while repair works to the property are undertaken. When the resident informed the landlord that he would have to refuse the works due to his condition, the landlord should have considered whether this would have been a practical solution given his vulnerabilities. This service has seen no evidence, however, that the landlord considered this until January 2024 following the resident’s request, and while it did at this time, it offered the resident no response. Without explaining why this could not be granted, this would have been frustrating for the resident.
  9. Instead it simply arranged for an urgent inspection of the roof. Given the landlord was aware of the ongoing and historical repair issues in this case, and his comments in May 2023 that he would have to refuse works due to his poor health and had nowhere else to go, it is unclear why it did not carry out an assessment to consider whether the resident could reasonably stay in the property. While the landlord’s stage 2 response offered appropriate support and assistance for the resident to facilitate a medical move, it should have done this much sooner. Instead, the resident had to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process.
  10. Following the work on 11 June 2023, the next day the landlord attempted to repair the down waste pipe and install a French drain. However, its records indicate it was unable to gain access. Subsequently, on 20 June 2023, a note stated its contractor closed the job. This was inappropriate and it is unclear why it did so. The landlord effectively left a job unresolved with no further recourse or action. Instead, the landlord should have made reasonable attempts to contact the resident and complete the work. It is noted that no further work orders or actions took place until January 2024 when the resident made a report again. However, the issue reported in 2024 included the down waste pipe and gullies which were previously identified as potential problems and raised as work orders in January and April 2023. This is concerning as it appears the landlord failed to adequately resolve these issues.
  11. In the landlord’s final response, it offered £130 as a gesture of goodwill for “loss of personal items and doctor’s letter”. It also provided information for the resident to claim under its liability insurer. While the Service does not consider complaints about damages and/or liability for damages, as such matters are better suited to an insurance claim or the courts; the Ombudsman recognises that it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to ask the resident to claim under his contents insurance. The resident has advised this Service he did not pursue the liability claim as he felt unsupported by the landlord in doing so. As such, a recommendation has been made.
  12. The resident had significant health conditions including COPD and asthma, which the landlord was aware of. It is concerning that the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment in this case given the repeated reports of damp and mould in February 2023 and January 2024. Further, the inspection report of March 2023 found visible mould on the bedroom wall. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould growth is classified as a hazard and it is the case that, the longer it is left untreated, the more damaging it can be to a person’s health. The resident advised this Service that he was vulnerable and concerned for his health.
  13. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report entitled “Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle” outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in his property for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s failure to coordinate necessary remedial works. Further, the adverse effect caused to the resident was likely to be more significant given the fact he was vulnerable.
  14. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord undertook a mould wash on 24 March 2023. In its final response, it suggested the resident ask for a further one once the leak had stopped. Mould washes used in conjunction with good practice to manage moisture levels can be an effective tool to prevent the spread of mould. Landlords must deal with the cause and consequences of damp and mould, not simply treat the symptoms. While work was carried out to the balcony around June 2023, it is apparent from the continued reports in January 2024 and the freeholder’s inspection of March 2024, that the cause of the damp and mould, which had been correctly identified during the assessment of March 2023 had not been adequately remedied. This likely led to considerable delays in resolving the leak and damp and mould.
  15. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property was poor. There were a series of failures that had a detrimental impact on the resident. While it attempted to resolve the issues, damp and mould persisted as the underlying cause of the balcony water ingress was not addressed which the landlord should have pursued with the freeholder. Despite the landlord being on notice as early as December 2022, it did not treat the matter with the necessary urgency and failed to adequately consider the resident’s health conditions. While it is recognised there appeared to be a gap from June 2023 until January 2024 where the resident did not report any concerns, this seemed to stem from the landlord closing a work order. Further, delays are attributed to the landlord by its failure to identify that it was not responsible for communal and external repairs such as balcony and flashing. Had the landlord identified this sooner, it could have appropriately managed the resident’s expectations.
  16. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of between £600 to £1,000 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which had a significant impact on the resident. While the landlord took steps to resolve the issue by arranging contractor attendance and work orders, it did not do so in timely manner and did not act with the necessary urgency considering reports of damp and mould were received from a vulnerable resident. The landlord recognised its shortcomings and failures, and apologised and made a total offer of £880 (paid to the resident) compensation and, of this, £550 was for the distress and inconvenience caused by the matter. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, this does not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s failings identified in this report. As such, an order of compensation has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. It aims to provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt of a formal complaint. At stage 2, it aims to issue its stage 2 (final) response within 20 working days of the escalation request. If the landlord is unable to respond within the timescale, it will write to the resident to explain why and provide the response within a further 10 working days.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint around 20 February 2023. The landlord acted in line with its policy by issuing its stage 1 decision within 10 working days. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 28 February 2023. However, it failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within 2 working days as per its policy. Although a number of actions were undertaken between March and June 2023, the landlord did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint until January 2024.
  3. While the landlord said in its final response that it acknowledged the stage 2 complaint in January 2024, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of this. This again may indicate issues with the landlord’s record keeping. Nevertheless, it did not provide a stage 2 response until 5 March 2024. This was a timeframe of over 250 working days and significantly outside of its policy timescale. This delay was considerable, and the landlord failed to update the resident or provide a new date of response in accordance with its policy.
  4. The landlord missed numerous opportunities to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint sooner. However, it provided an explanation and apologised for the delays. In addition, it offered £200 compensation for its complaint-handling failures. Overall, its offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and proportionate to the adverse effect caused which involved the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the complaint. Additionally, the landlord identified learning from the complaint relating to the delays . In view of this, the landlord made an offer of redress that was satisfactory in putting matters right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and subsequent damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress with respect to its handling of the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident a further £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  2. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days to confirm that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should assist the resident in commencing a claim for the damage to his belongings via its insurer should he wish to pursue this.