London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202347531)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347531

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

2 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:
    1. Reports of noise, odours and an infestation of flies caused by blocked drainage.
    2. Reports of an infestation of mice.
    3. Reports of an overgrown tree in a neighbouring garden
    4. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a lease with the landlord. The property is a first floor flat in a converted house. The landlord said it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident told us that at the time of the complaint she was receiving long-term treatment for cancer, which the landlord was aware of.
  2. The resident told us she had allowed the contractors access to the drains to carry out a survey on 9 August 2023. Later that month, she contacted the landlord about work to the drains. It noted that it could not see that a works order had been raised and raised this at that time.
  3. On 18 October 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about several issues: the drains including problems with drain flies, noise and odours; the mice that were trying to “bite their way” into the property; and the overgrown tree that the landlord had said it would cut back over a year ago.
  4. On the following day the landlord issued the stage one complaint response. It upheld that complaint and said it had raised a works order for its drainage contractor to attend but they had needed access to her flat also. It said it had provided the resident’s details to the contractor but understood they had not contacted her. The landlord said it would escalate this and apologised for any inconvenience caused. The landlord contacted the drainage contractor the same day and asked them to act urgently.
  5. The resident responded on 20 October 2023 explaining she had reluctantly given access to the drainage contractors on the day they had attended the downstairs flat as she had had plans to be elsewhere. She said the contractors had opened the manhole both in her garden and driveway and had done a CCTV inspection. She said the contractors had said they would get back to her but had not done so. The resident repeated that the drains were not her only complaint issue; there was also pest control for the mice; the overgrown tree; and noise from the flat above. She asked the landlord to action these points and “revisit the complaint”.
  6. On 2 November 2023 the landlord chased the drainage contractor and also asked the resident if any work had been completed. The resident responded to say no work had been done. On 13 November 2023 the resident again asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
  7. Almost 4 months later, in early March 2024, the landlord raised work orders for a survey on the overgrown tree and for pest control in relation to rats. The repairs log evidences that the pest contractor noted the works order had been “completed – no action”. The evidence suggests this is a result of a call to the resident on 11 March 2023 in which it noted she had reported that “she didn’t know anything about rodents – she had not seen any”.
  8. On 13 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response apologising for the delay in providing that response as it was working through a backlog of complaints. It said, having reviewed the maintenance records, it could see that the contractors had carried out repairs for the blocked drain on 3 April 2023. The landlord said it had raised the works for pest control and a survey for the overgrown tree. It offered the resident £50 for its delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2.
  9. A tree survey was scheduled for April 2024. There is no evidence that went ahead. The evidence suggests that in July 2024 the landlord asked pest control to fill holes for prevention of pests and work was completed on 25 July 2024. It is not clear if this related to mice as the other entry in the log referred only to rats.
  10. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said the drain flies were on her and her food which, as a cancer patient with impaired immunity, was not healthy. She said she had to sleep under a mosquito net. The resident is seeking reimbursement of her expenses and compensation for the distress caused to her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This Service is also to consider the resident’s reports of historic drainage and tree issues, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme says that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising, and she complained about these issues to it in October 2023. Therefore, we have focussed on events since October 2022.
  2. The resident mentions that her health has been affected by unhygienic conditions resulting from the drain flies in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health. We understand this has been a difficult time for her and understand her concern given her impaired immunity. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident might have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as its response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s response to reports of noise, odours and an infestation of flies caused by blocked drainage

  1. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for the maintenance, repair and renewal of various parts of the building including drainage. The repair policy says that, for routine day to day repairs, it will aim to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days. The repair policy says that leaseholders are generally responsible for all repairs to the interior of their unit and all facilities that service only their unit.
  2. We can see that there were some historical issues relating to drainage in 2019. The evidence suggests that the resident reported further problems, and that the contractor carried out a drains survey in August 2023, however the landlord does not appear to have a record of the survey. The resident said she had no warning of that survey. We consider, on the balance of probability, that a survey took place on 9 August 2023 because the resident has a very clear recollection of it due to an event she was attending that day, and the fact that she chased the landlord about this matter later that month.
  3. We have not seen a copy of that survey. Given the reported noise, odour and drain flies, it is likely that follow on works were required. There is no evidence of any substantive action taken by the landlord or the contractor. While the landlord chased this matter with the contractor, they do not appear to have replied. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that this issue was resolved on 3 April 2023. However, the repairs log evidences the repair that day related to guttering, not a drain clearance. To date there is no evidence of any follow-up action following the survey of August 2023, despite the resident chasing for this.
  4. The landlord’s handling of this repair was not appropriate because it has not taken action to try to resolve the drainage problems experienced by the resident, including the infestation of drain flies. It should have resolved this matter within 25 days of the survey. This lack of follow up would have caused the resident significant inconvenience as she was waiting for longer than she should have been for the drainage issue to be resolved.
  5. Given the time that has passed, an order has been made for the landlord to engage a different, independent drainage contractor to carry out another CCTV drainage survey and to act on any recommendations made by them to resolve these drainage issues for the resident. Another survey is appropriate because the situation with the drains may have changed over such a long period and different repairs may be needed at this stage. If the landlord is unable to carry out any of these recommendations it should write to the resident to explain why.
  6. The Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental or physical health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
  7. In this case the resident has experienced evident distress, frustration and inconvenience as a result of the lack of action by the landlord in relation to the drainage issues she reported. Financial compensation of £300 is appropriate for the impact on the resident. This sum takes into account the vulnerabilities of the resident which meant the failure to carry out repairs would have had a more severe effect on her compared to other residents in the same position without her vulnerabilities. The sums awarded in this report are in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) which sets out our approach to compensation. Awards in this range include cases where there have been delays in investigating and remedying pest and drainage issues which had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s response to reports of an infestation of mice

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that the landlord is responsible for resolving pest infestations that affect multiple flats and that residents are responsible for eradicating any pests within houses, bungalows or a single flat.
  2. We have not seen evidence of reports of mice before the resident raised this issue in her formal complaint in October 2023. The landlord should have taken action at that time to get more detail from the resident to make a decision on the likely extent of the infestation and whether it, or the resident, was responsible for resolving it in line with its repair policy. The evidence suggests that the mice were between the 2 flats and that this was therefore the responsibility of the landlord to resolve.
  3. The landlord’s handling of this matter was not appropriate. It took the landlord 5 months to raise a works order for pest control and, when it did so, it referred to rats in the garden, not mice within the building. When the call note says the resident told the pest contractor there were no rats, they cancelled the job. This error meant that the action to resolve the infestation was delayed further. The landlord took too long to deal with the reported mice infestation. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to arrange for its pest contractor to visit the building to investigate and resolve the mice infestation, if it has not done so already.
  4. The landlord’s mishandling of the report of a mice infestation has caused evident frustration and distress to the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above financial compensation of £150 is appropriate compensation for that impact.

The landlord’s response to reports of an overgrown tree in a neighbouring garden

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that the landlord is responsible for carrying out work in the gardens of its tenants where trees are dead, diseased or dangerous. The landlord’s website says that it will only carry out major tree maintenance in limited circumstances including when a tree is likely to cause structural damage to the foundations of the resident or a neighbour’s property or when the tree is taller than 12 metres.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident had reported the overgrown tree intermittently for over 10 years and that some work to cut it back was undertaken in October 2022. The resident told us that the tree was not cut back on her side at that time because a neighbour had objected.
  3. The resident raised this matter again in her formal complaint in October 2023 and the landlord raised a work order for a tree survey in early March 2024. The landlord’s records suggest the survey was scheduled for April 2024, but we have seen no evidence this survey took place. The repairs log notes it is outstanding. The landlord’s decision to have a survey of the tree was reasonable for it to reach a view whether or not it is dead, diseased or dangerous or over 12 metres tall. Only then, would it have responsibility for it. However, the delay in taking this action is not reasonable as the resident has been waiting almost one year for progress since she complained in October 2023.
  4. It is evident that the delays in reaching a decision on what action, if any, will be taken about the overgrown tree has also caused the resident inconvenience and frustration. She described the tree as “constantly littering” the garden and that she had had to pay to have the garden cleared of the tree detritus as she was not well enough to clear this herself. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £120 is appropriate for that impact.
  5. There is nothing in the lease to suggest the landlord is responsible for clearing leaves from the resident’s garden. However, it would have been good customer service for the landlord to have set out to the resident what its responsibilities were in terms of the overgrown tree and what her responsibilities might be also in terms of clearing any tree detritus. There is no evidence that it did so, and a recommendation has been made for it do so now.
  6. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to ensure that the survey of the tree is carried out without further delay. It should write to the resident once this survey has been completed with details of what work, if any, it will undertake.

The landlord’s response to the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At the time of the complaint, the landlord aimed to respond within 10 working days at stage one and within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request at stage 2.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate for a number of reasons:
    1. The landlord did not address all the issues raised. The stage one response dealt only with the drainage issue and disregarded the mice and tree concerns. The resident had raised these issues, so she had a right to expect the landlord to respond to them. Further, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code notes that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. By not investigating these concerns, the landlord missed a chance to identify and fix issues at an earlier stage.
    2. Complaints are an opportunity for landlords to consider their actions; whether they followed their policies and procedure and acted fairly. In this case, the landlord did not make an assessment of what it had done in relation to the drainage, pest infestation or overgrown tree. There was no evidence of any investigation; the complaint responses only gave details of what it would do next in relation to the matters complained about. That was a serious failing which may have given the resident the impression that the landlord was not listening to her or taking her concerns seriously.
    3. The resident’s email of 20 October 2023 was a clear request to escalate the complaint. However, the landlord did not treat it as such which meant she had to ask it to escalate the complaint again the following month. This was a failing which delayed the complaints process.
    4. In that first escalation email, the resident raised a new issue about noise nuisance from the upstairs neighbour. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, the landlord should have raised a new stage one complaint to deal with this issue because this matter was unrelated to the issues already being investigated. It did not do so and that was a failing. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident and take details of this complaint about noise nuisance and the impact on her and deal with it under its complaint procedure. The Ombudsman has not considered the noise nuisance in our investigation because this issue has not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. This is in accordance with 42.a of the Scheme.
    5. The stage 2 complaint response referred to drainage works being carried out in April 2023, but as we referenced earlier, the repair log evidences a repair to the guttering that day, not drainage. The landlord should ensure that it gives accurate information in its complaint responses and, if it is unsure about what has happened, it should clarify this before including information in its complaint response. 
    6. There was a delay of over 4 months by the landlord in issuing the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord offered the resident £50 for that delay. It is positive that the landlord accepted it had made errors and offered compensation, but its offer was not enough to put things right for the resident, taking into account the cumulative impact of all of the complaint handling errors set out above.
  3. It is evident that the landlord’s poor complaint handling caused distress, frustration and inconvenience to the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £250 is appropriate for that full impact. This replaces the £50 previously offered.
  4. The findings in this report echo the findings of a special report that the Ombudsman published into the landlord in July 2023. That report found multiple failings in the area of complaint handling including where the landlord’s complaint responses were not genuine attempts to address the complaints – they did not answer the complaint sufficiently and consequently, residents were often requesting an escalation of their complaint, frustrated that their concerns were not answered in the initial response. It also found that the landlord had demonstrated little consideration of the resident; and that its communication with residents was often undermined by poor knowledge and information management. This included the landlord not checking records to see what they knew about the resident, and/or their property, before responding.
  5. In that special report, we recommended that the landlord should make various improvements in several areas including complaint handling, which the landlord has undertaken. This report has therefore made no individual orders in respect of the wider issues identified with the landlord’s processes as these have been covered already in the special report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to:
    1. Reports of noise, odours and an infestation of flies caused by blocked drainage.
    2. Reports of an infestation of mice.
    3. Reports of an overgrown tree in a neighbouring garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
    1. A senior manager to write to the resident with an apology for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £820 made up of:
      1. £300 for the impact of the landlord’s failings in relation to the drainage problems the resident reported.
      2. £150 for the impact of its failings in relation to the mice infestation.
      3. £120 for the impact of its failings in relation to the overgrown tree.
      4. £250 for the impact of its complaint handling failings (minus any sum paid previously).
    3. Engage a different, independent drainage contractor to carry out another CCTV drainage survey and to act on any recommendations made by them to resolve these drainage issues for the resident. If the landlord is unable to carry out any of these recommendations it should write to the resident to explain why.
    4. Arrange for its pest contractor to visit the building to investigate and resolve the mice infestation, if it has not done so already.
    5. Ensure that the survey of the tree is carried out without further delay. It should write to the resident once this survey has been completed with details of what work, if any, it will undertake.
    6. Contact the resident and take details of her complaint relating to a noise nuisance and the impact on her and deal with it under its complaint procedure.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord writes to the resident to set out what its responsibilities are in terms of the overgrown tree and what her responsibilities might be also in terms of clearing any tree detritus.