London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202414096)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414096

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 December 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak in the property.
2. Damp and mould.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began in January 2012. She lives in a 3-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a mid-rise block with her family. The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord in October 2023 to make a complaint. She said she had a leak on her ceiling which she originally informed the landlord about in 2020. She was informed that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the landlord would deal with the repairs when it was able to. As she had not heard back, and the matter was not resolved, she contacted the again landlord in May 2023. However, despite someone coming out to investigate the terrace from the flat above her, she said she had not heard back from the landlord since that time. The resident said in her complaint that in addition to the ceiling issue, there was mould around her windows and damp down her walls.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 October 2023. It advised it was only able to go back 1 year when investigating matters. It had therefore gone back to April 2023 when the roofing works were raised. It said that the work order for the leak into the living room was raised on 26 April 2023 and its contractor attended on 10 May 2023. The contractor requested follow-up works which were approved. Further quotes for the follow-up investigations were raised on 1 October 2023. The landlord said it would contact the relevant team to review the updated quote. It would then assess any compensation.
The resident escalated the complaint on 9 December 2023. She stated she had a chest infection which she linked to the damp and mould spores in the property. She also said she was yet to hear back at all from the landlord since the surveyor visit which it arranged on 16 November 2023. The resident added that the surveyor who attended confirmed to her that they were the wrong surveyor, as someone was required to look at the terrace above and they were unable to do this.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 18 December 2023. It stated that while its website said the response would be within 20 days, there could be delay in it issuing the stage 2 response.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 3 April 2024. It set out that:
1. It understood from the resident that both she and her children were unwell during the complaint, which they linked to the ongoing issues and the resident’s furniture was damaged by the leak. Claims for damage to belongings and/or personal injury fell outside its complaints process. It directed the resident to claim via her home contents insurance. If the resident did not have home contents insurance or felt that it was at fault for the damages, she should contact its insurance team providing information relating to the loss/damage.
2. It accepted the length of time to address the repair was unacceptable. Part of the reason for this was that the quotation sent by the contractor for further work was refused by it without an explanation. It was chasing up the matter with the contractor, and it understood that dry weather was necessary for the work to be carried out. The contractor would be in touch with the resident shortly with a scheduled date. It would then “monitor the outstanding works and check that they are scheduled and completed accordingly”.
3. It offered the resident compensation of £875. This comprised:
  1. £200 for distress for its failure to recognise the impact of issue of the leak.
  2. £300 for the inconvenience caused.
  3. £125 for the time and effort of resolving the complaint.
  4. £250 for the delays at stage 2.

The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said in her communication to it on 22 April 2024 that she had not accepted the compensation offer, so did not understand why it paid the money directly into her rent account. She added in a further email that she found it strange the landlord offered compensation when the work had not started. She noted that there was a damp smell in the flat and she had become a “recluse” because of the matter.
In referring the matter to this Service on 7 July 2024, the resident said she had not received any update from the landlord and contractor for several weeks. She added that despite the weather having been dry for an extended period, the works to address the leak and her ceiling had not taken place. She was yet to hear back from the landlord about her damaged sofa. She said the damage to the property had got worse and plaster had now fallen from the ceiling onto her daughter who was sitting in the living room.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord has since confirmed that its contractor attended to the balcony above the resident’s property on 20 July 2024 and carried out repairs to it. Following the resident contacting the landlord to say the leak had not been resolved, it arranged for a recall works order to be raised in October 2024 for the contractor to reattend the property.
The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the leak, damp and mould were still affecting the property as of 7 December 2024. While the resident said that she was visited by a contractor which took measurements on 6 December 2024, the contractor was unable to provide her with any further update as the job had only just been assigned to it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that while the landlord went back to April 2023 in its complaint responses, the history of the leak goes back a significant time before this (to just before when the COVID-19 pandemic began). The landlord has provided this Service with the history of repairs from April 2023. It is apparent from the evidence that the issue of the leak to the ceiling was first reported by the resident in February 2020. The Ombudsman has referred to details of these earlier instances in the context of providing a chronology of events.
The resident has mentioned that her health and that of her children have been impacted by the damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the chest infection she has unfortunately experienced, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact 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 through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The Ombudsman’s role

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with these principles.

The landlord’s obligations

The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating. It adds that the landlord will carry out repairs for which it is responsible.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that its response time is 24 hours for emergency repairs which present an immediate danger to the resident. It aims to compete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will establish if an immediate repair is required (for example, to address a leak or health and safety risk) and will act in accordance with its repairs policy. Following the report, an assessment of the property will take place at a mutually convenient time within 20 working days to establish the scale of the problem. The assessment will seek to identify the underlying cause of the damp and mould within the property and provide the tenant with guidance on managing mould. Any remedial works required will be recorded and raised to the landlord’s internal or external maintenance teams within 10 working days of the assessment.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay compensation in the event that a resident has suffered a service loss or failure for which an apology is not sufficient. The policy states that the level of discretionary compensation offered by the landlord is linked to:
1. The duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience.
2. The seriousness of any unfair impact.
3. Actions by the resident which either mitigated or contributed to actual financial loss, inconvenience or unfair impact.
4. How it has communicated with the resident.
The compensation policy does not provide a tariff for discretionary compensation. It sets out that the landlord will not pay compensation under a number of circumstances. Included in these are:
1. Where the resident had not allowed reasonable access for it to complete repairs.
2. Where there are exceptional reasons for service delay or failure that are outside its control, such as inclement weather, supply chain issues, or COVID-19 restrictions.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out that in responding to reports of damp and mould it will (among other things):
1. Comply with all relevant legislation and regulatory requirements.
2. Take responsibility for identifying, investigating and resolving damp and mould as quickly and effectively as it can.
3. Keep residents informed of its actions and next steps and communicate on a regular basis.
4. Continue to embed a data-driven, risk-based approach so it can be more proactive in its approach to damp and mould, “anticipating where issues may arise and intervening earlier to avoid unnecessary escalations, complaints, and disrepair cases”.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions” by it, or those acting on its behalf which affect a resident.
The landlord’s complaints process comprises 2 stages. Its policy sets out that a complaint must be made within 6 months of the issue occurring. At stage 1 it will log and acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, and send a written response within 10 working days of logging it. If it needs more than 10 days, it will write to the resident to explain this within 10 working days. If the complaint is escalated to stage 2, the landlord will send a written response within 20 working days of the request to escalate. If it needs longer it will write to explain the reasons for this and respond within a further 10 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property

It is apparent that the situation with the leak and the subsequent damp and mould has been distressing for the resident. It is clear from the landlord’s repair logs that the resident initially reported the leak in February 2020. She has confirmed that despite the landlord’s attempts to resolve the leak, it was still leaking after its most recent repair in July 2024, over 4 years later. This was a significant failing, and as the landlord has attempted in the interim to resolve the matter without success, it raises concerns over the landlord’s approach to the repairs.
Having said this, it is acknowledged that for part of the 4-year period the landlord operated an interim reduced service as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it did not return to its normal process for repairs until April 2021. During the interim service period, which began in March 2020, the landlord operated a “critical and emergency only” repair service, responding by appointment to issues such as loss of heating, hot water, or power, or situations where there was a risk of harm to a person or property. It did not carry out routine repairs during the period when government restrictions were in place.
The landlord’s repair records show no jobs were raised by it to address the leak between November 2020 and April 2023. An entry for 2 October 2020 noted under the description that a roofer was required to attend and investigate the balcony above the leak, and that the leak was coming into the resident’s living room. The work order also referred to this being a follow-up to an earlier work order raised on 17 February 2020. This work order was closed by the landlord on 30 October 2020 and under ‘status’ it stated, “complete no action”. The landlord has not provided any explanation as to why the work order was closed by it, or evidence that it provided the resident with an explanation about this.
Even though the landlord was operating a reduced service at the time, it should have ensured that it kept the work order active so that when it did return to its normal repairs service with effect from April 2021, it could deal with the matter. Not having an active job open for the leak was a failing by it.
The resident explained that she did not contact the landlord again about the matter until around May 2023. Given that the landlord raised a work order on 26 April 2023, it is likely that the resident contacted the landlord at this time. Irrespective of this, it still took the landlord a further 15 months to carry out the initial repairs. This was a further 3 months after it issued its stage 2 response at the beginning of April 2024. The landlord said in that correspondence that its contractor needed clear weather to carry out the work and it would be in touch with the resident shortly. However, despite a prolonged period from late May 2024 where the weather was dry, the work was not carried out until 20 July 2024. The landlord has not provided any explanation for the delay between April 2024 and July 2024. Neither was it proactive in providing updates to the resident during this period. This was a failing by it.
The landlord confirmed that, following it raising the works order in April 2023, its contractor attended the property in May 2023 and provided it with a quote for further investigations/works which were needed. This quote – which the landlord confirmed was provided to it on 10 October 2023 – was not approved by its panel. However, no explanation was provided for this, even after the landlord chased the matter internally. The landlord did not appear to make any other arrangements to source a quote from a different contractor in the interim. This was unreasonable, and increased the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord rightly acknowledged some of the delays. It also apologised to the resident, as well as offering compensation of £200 for the distress caused by the leak, £300 for the inconvenience, and £125 for the time and effort in getting the complaint resolved. Although this total award of £625 is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration, the landlord’s offer did not reflect the resident’s personal circumstances (including her concerns about health impact) or the fact that the leak was not resolved at the time of its offer. The landlord’s failings therefore amount to maladministration where the impact on the resident has been significant, including both physical and emotional impact. Although the landlord acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right, it failed to adequately address the detriment to the resident. Given this, the Ombudsman considers a further award of £300 (making a total award of £925) is proportionate to the landlord’s failings. In the absence of a tariff or other guidance in the landlord’s compensation policy, the award is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards, and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS, and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The resident informed the landlord that in addition to the damp coming through her ceiling, the walls of the property had become damp, causing her wallpaper to peel and mould to form on the windows. She also explained that her possessions, including her sofa, were damaged.
To address the damp and mould, the landlord would normally be expected to carry out a damp inspection initially. This would seek to identify the likely cause of the damp and mould. However, in this case an inspection was not necessary as the cause of the damp and mould was known. In order to effectively tackle the damp and mould it would have been necessary for the landlord to first stop the leak. Once this occurred and the property had dried out, it would then be able to address the matter.
However, the landlord has provided this Service with no evidence that, following the works which it scheduled as part of its stage 2 response to address the leak, it raised any work orders to address the damp and mould. This was a missed opportunity by it. Neither was there any indication that the landlord considered whether or not a decant was required while it attempted to resolve the damp and mould. Again, this was a failing by it. It was aware from the communication by the resident that the leak had caused damp and mould which were progressively worsening and spreading to more than a single area. The resident also made the landlord aware of the health implications for her linked to the damp and mould.
Although the resident submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurance team for the damage caused to her sofa, which she later chased on several occasions, this claim has still not been addressed by the insurance team. The landlord confirmed to this Service that the claim was with its liability team.
Despite apologising and acknowledging its failures, the landlord has continued to fail in its obligations to repair the property, and in doing so, eroded the resident’s confidence that it would suitably rectify the issues. This includes the time taken by its insurance team to deal with the resident’s claim for damages to her sofa.
The landlord did not demonstrate in its stage 2 response that it had put things right, as the work to rectify the damp and mould remain outstanding. Overall, there is evidence that the landlord failed to address the mould and damp in the property, and also that it failed in its management and oversight of the investigation. The landlord’s failings are serious and would have adversely affected the resident. Although it made some attempt to put things right, it failed to address the detriment caused by the damp and mould to the resident. As a result, this amounts to maladministration. Compensation of £200 has been awarded in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

After the resident made her complaint on 9 October 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on the next day. This was in keeping with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
Following the resident requesting an escalation to stage 2 on 12 December 2023, the landlord explained to in its acknowledgment email of 18 December 2023 there might be a delay with it providing a response due to the number of complaints it was dealing with. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. However, it did not issue the stage 2 response until 3 April 2024, 102 working days later. This was significantly outside the timescales in the complaints policy. The resident chased the landlord for an update on the matter on several occasions. The landlord’s records show that the stage 2 reviewer was not allocated the complaint until 9 February 2024, around 2 months after the escalation. From this point it still took the reviewer over 7 weeks to reply. During this timeframe there were gaps in the landlord chasing with the contractor/other areas and responding back to the resident, which was unsatisfactory.
In summary, there was a significant delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response. The landlord made an offer of £250 for the delay. This offer is in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance for circumstances where the Ombudsman considers there to be a failure which adversely affected the resident, however there was no permanent impact. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that reasonable redress has been offered for the landlord’s complaint handling failing and that no further compensation is due.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak in the property.
2. Damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks (to allow for the Christmas period) the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,125. This comprises the £625 it offered in relation to the issue of the leak, damp and mould in its stage 2 response of 3 April 2024, and an additional £500. The additional amount is made up of the following aspects:
  1. £300 for the landlord’s failings in its handling of the leak.
  2. £200 for the landlord’s failings in its handling of the damp and mould.
3. Consider offering further compensation to the resident following the completion of the repairs. This should cover the period from December 2024 until the time the repairs are completed. The landlord should inform the resident and this Service of its intentions with regard to this order within the 6 weeks, including any calculation it proposes to use.
4. Provide the resident with an update from its insurance team regarding her claim for her damaged possessions. If it is not possible to proceed with the claim as a result of delays caused by the landlord, the landlord should consider other ways it can put things right. It should inform this Service of its intentions within the 6 weeks.
5. Contact the resident to determine if she has any further concerns following the end of its internal complaints process. This should take into account the ongoing issues with the leak, damp and mould, which the resident reported were still present at the beginning of December 2024. The landlord should respond to any new and ongoing repair issues in line with its policies.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £250 it previously offered in its stage 2 response of 3 April 2024, if it has not already done so. This is in respect of its complaint handling.