London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202117419)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117419

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 October 2023

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 is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, antisocial behaviour (ASB), and harassment.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling and the landlord’s decision to offset compensation paid to the resident against rent arrears.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives alone in a 1-bed ground-floor flat owned by the landlord and let to her on an assured tenancy since July 2019.
The landlord’s records state that the resident has a mental health condition.
The resident first reported ASB from her upstairs neighbour to the landlord in October 2019. She reported noise nuisance and harassment on 8 occasions between October 2019 and July 2020.
The resident first reported damp and mould at the property to the landlord in November 2020 when she stated that there was an issue with “condensation” throughout the property. The resident issued a letter of claim through her solicitor in February 2021 regarding damp and mould in the property.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on October 2021 regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and damp and mould. The landlord’s internal complaint process was completed on 16 December 2022 when the landlord issued its final response letter.

Tenancy obligations

The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in good repair the exterior and structure of the property.
The tenancy agreement prohibits the resident and their visitors from engaging in antisocial, criminal, nuisance, and immoral behaviours.

Repair policy

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to penetrative and rising damp, condensation and mould.

Damp and mould action plan

In October 2021 the Ombudsman published the Spotlight Report on damp and mould which called on landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance attitude towards the issue. In response to the report the landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its action plan showing how it intends to address damp and mould in its properties.

ASB policy and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy defines “persistent, deliberate or targeted” noise as ASB along with harassment or intimidation (including verbal abuse, threats and bullying). The landlord states that it will not “normally” consider noise caused by “people going about their daily lives”, minor fallouts, and neighbour “disputes” as ASB.
The landlord differentiates between ‘high priority’ and ‘standard priority’ cases. It aims to respond to high priority cases within 1 working day and to standard cases within 3 working days.
The landlord says that it will complete a risk assessment “on all high priority ASB cases (and where relevant on standard priority cases)”. If the landlord decides it is unable to act following an ASB report it will signpost the reporting person to further advice and support. It also says it will agree an action plan with the reporting person and keep them updated throughout the case.

Complaint process

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints will be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days, a written response will be issued within 10 working days of logging the complaint. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days of the request to escalate the complaint.
The complaint policy states that where “court proceedings are underway” (defined as when a claim form and particulars of claim have been filed at court) it will not consider this a complaint.

Compensation policy

The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider paying compensation where “an apology alone is not sufficient” and there has been a service failure that has impacted on a resident.
The compensation policy states that the landlord will pay a fixed payment of £10 if it fails to respond to a query within 10 working days or fails to respond to a complaint within the timeframes in its complaint policy. Where the landlord fails to attend pre-booked appointments it will pay £20.
The landlord states that, when a resident has rent arrears it will “partly or fully offset a compensation payment or award against the debt”.

Events before the complaint period

The resident first reported noise nuisance to the landlord from her upstairs neighbour on 26 October 2019. She went on to report ASB from her upstairs neighbour and more generally in the block on 7 further occasions between October 2019 and July 2020.
The resident first reported issues with condensation, damp and mould on 10 November 2020. On 9 December 2020 a contractor instructed by the landlord carried out a ‘healthy homes survey’.
The resident’s solicitors issued a letter of claim to the landlord on 12 February 2021 in line with the housing conditions protocol. The letter outlined issues with damp and mould in the resident’s living room, bathroom, and bedroom and “defective” exterior brickwork. Within the letter the resident’s solicitor stated that the resident had reported the issue of damp and mould to the landlord in November 2020.

Events during the complaint period

On 26 March 2021 the landlord instructed an independent housing disrepair expert to carry out an inspection of the property. The inspection was carried out on 20 April 2021. A schedule of works was drawn up following the inspection, this included works to:
1. Re-point the brick sill on the front elevation.
2. Cut back vegetation, re-point, and re-seal the boiler flue on the rear elevation.
3. Provide a dehumidifier.
4. Replace the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
5. Replace the failed double-glazed window units in the living room and bedroom.
6. Remove and renew damp plaster in the living room/kitchen.
7. Investigate a possible leak from the flat above in the bathroom and make good the ceiling.
8. Carry out mould wash in the living room/kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom.
9. Carry out an electrical installation condition report in the living room.
The landlord raised works orders with its contractors for the disrepair works listed on the above schedule on 18 May 2021.
On 4 June 2021 the resident’s solicitors wrote to the landlord to confirm that she had accepted its settlement offer of £1,000 along with the completion of required repairs to resolve the damp and mould. The resident’s rent account shows that the compensation was credited to her rent account and offset against rent arrears of £280.70.
The landlord commissioned a damp survey of the property which was carried out by a specialist contractor on 15 July 2021. The survey found:
1. The living room external wall was cold and damp caused by condensation due to low levels of insulation.
2. The external living room wall was wet close to the downpipe.
3. There were moisture droplets on cold pipework in the kitchen which indicates a leak and/or condensation.
4. The bathroom was cold and there was mould growth on the wall below pipes suggesting “condensation related damp”. There was no indication of leaking pipes.
5. There were reduced temperatures in the bedroom and mould growth where the wall and floor met indicating “condensation related damp”.
The landlord’s repairs log for the property state that the
The resident reported to the landlord that on 16 October 2021 she had knocked on her neighbour’s door following loud noise from their property between 5am and 5.30am. The resident reported that she had been met with “intimidation and threatening behaviour”.
The landlord’s ASB records demonstrate that the TMO contacted the resident on 18 October 2021 and carried out a risk assessment which was rated as ‘high’. The resident advised the TMO that she wanted to move to another property but was advised that the TMO would need to “exhaust all avenues before [they] can consider a possible move”. Following the initial interview with the resident the TMO wrote to the resident on the same day enclosing an ASB action plan. The agreed actions included:
1. The resident would report future incidents to the police.
2. The landlord would write a warning letter to the resident’s neighbour and “take appropriate action if deemed necessary”.
3. Additional security measures had been discussed and would be followed up by the landlord’s maintenance team.
4. The landlord would refer the resident to “the necessary agencies”.
5. The resident would provide the landlord with evidence from her GP, mental health team, and crime reference numbers.
This Service has seen evidence that confirms that the landlord contacted mental health services on 18 October 2021 to request support for the resident. We have also seen evidence that on the same date the TMO requested that several security measures including additional door bolts and a door chain be fitted to the resident’s property as she had “been a victim [of] antisocial behaviour from others within the block”.
Also on 18 October 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident’s neighbour. The neighbour stated that he had not been making any noise and said that the resident was making false reports to the landlord and the police. The neighbour stated that the resident was constantly opening her door and watching him.
On 21 October 2021 the landlord requested disclosure from the police. On the same date the landlord made a safeguarding referral to the local authority social care department.
The landlord spoke to the local authority on 28 October 2021 who confirmed that it was processing the safeguarding referral.
The landlord logged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 29 October 2021 following communication from this Service. The complaint was about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
On 1 November 2021 the resident reported that on 30 October 2021 she had reported a “continuous disturbance” to the police between 4am and 7am. The resident reported that she had had to sleep at a bus stop due to the noise disturbance. The TMO contacted the police who confirmed that they had attended as the resident had reported noise nuisance from her neighbour. The police did not report witnessing any noise. On the same date the TMO contacted other residents in the block to ascertain whether they were also experiencing noise nuisance from the resident’s neighbour. No other residents reported noise nuisance in the block.
On 1 November 2021 the landlord contacted its contractor and requested an update on its order for a new double-glazed unit for the living room of the property. The landlord stated that the order had been raised on 16 September 2021. The landlord contacted the contractor again on 29 November 2021 having not received a response to its previous email.
The landlord’s legal team advised the complaint team on 4 November 2021 that a settlement agreement with the resident’s solicitors was made for £1,000 minus rent arears of £280.70.
On 7 November 2021 internal landlord emails between the landlord’s complaint team and legal team demonstrate that there was an active disrepair legal case relating to damp and mould. The emails stated that the landlord had agreed to replace extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and then carry out a mould wash.
Internal landlord emails demonstrated that its contractor had arranged to attend the property on 10 November 2021 to install extractor fans to the bathroom and kitchen but that the resident had rearranged this appointment to 29 November 2021.
On 10 November 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that her neighbour was throwing rubbish into her garden.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 11 November 2021.The response stated:
1. The landlord had logged an ASB case on 18 October 2021 and was being managed by the TMO who had been in contact with the resident. The TMO had provided the resident with an action plan which was being adhered to and agreed to contact the resident fortnightly, which he had done.
2. A legal disrepair case relating to the damp and mould had been raised on 19 February 2021. The case was being dealt with by a repair solicitor and any concerns relating to this case should be raised through the solicitors.
3. The resident had accepted the landlord’s compensation offer of £1,000 in relation to the damp and mould disrepair case. This had been offset against the resident’s rent arrears.
On 19 November 2021 the TMO contacted the police who confirmed that it had not received any new reports of noise nuisance relating to the resident or her neighbour.
The TMO wrote to the resident on 19 November 2021. They stated that it had received confirmation from the police that the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance had been investigated “on numerous occasions” and that the resident’s neighbour had been spoken to by the police but that no further evidence had been taken. The TMO also stated that they had spoken to other residents in the area but that they had advised they had not experienced any noise nuisance. The TMO advised the resident that they had requested information from the local authority noise nuisance team. The letter advised that the TMO would contact the resident twice a month until they received a response from the local authority and that it the local authority was not taking any action, the ASB case would be closed. The TMO enclosed diary sheets for the resident to complete and details of how to evidence noise nuisance via the NoiseApp (mobile phone noise recording application).
Later on 19 November 2021 the local authority noise team emailed the TMO and stated that it had attended the property on 2 occasions, in February 2018 and on 22 October 2021. It stated that it did not witness any noise and no action was taken. The landlord wrote to the resident and relayed this information and said that as a result it was closing the resident’s ASB case. It advised her to contact the local authority noise team if she experienced further noise nuisance.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 29 November 2021 but was unable to fit an extractor fan to the kitchen as there was no cable present and had also been unable to fit the bathroom extractor as the fan did not fit correctly. A further appointment had been booked with the resident for 8 December 2021.
The resident advised the landlord on 6 December 2021 that she wanted to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on the same day.
Emails between the landlord and its contractor show that appointments were made to fit the extractor fans on 8 December 2021 but the resident rearranged this appointment. A further appointment was arranged for 6 January 2022.
On 20 December 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord and stated that she was unhappy that her ASB case had been closed down and requested a call back.
On 23 December 2021 the TMO telephoned the resident’s neighbour regarding the resident’s allegations. The neighbour denied that he was causing any noise nuisance and stated that the resident was harassing him, knocking on his door to “talk about noise he is not making”, and approaching him in communal areas of the block to complaint about noise. On the same date the landlord’s regional manager telephoned the resident to discuss her concerns that her ASB case was not being addressed properly. The regional manager advised the resident that “appropriate steps” had been taken but that the resident needed to provide evidence before further action could be taken. The case notes state that the resident became “irate…and ended the telephone conversation by hanging up the phone”.
Email communications between the landlord and its electrical contractor stated that the contractor attended the resident’s property on 6 January 2022 to install extractor fans to the bathroom and kitchen. The resident had told them that she instead wanted them to fit an extractor fan in the bedroom and an extractor cooker hood in the kitchen. The contractor had advised the resident that this was not the order that had been raised by the landlord and advised her that this request would need to be approved by the landlord and a new order raised. No works were therefore completed on this visit.
The resident contacted the landlord via its website on 11 January 2022 and reported that she felt that her formal complaint and ASB reports were being ignored.
The resident’s neighbour made a counter allegation of ASB from the resident on 13 January 2022 stating that he had been approached by her in a communal corridor.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 January 2021 to request that an extractor fan be fitted in her bedroom due to damp in the bedroom.
On 21 January 2022 the landlord was contacted by its glazing contractor who stated that it had been contacted by the resident the day before to cancel their appointment for that day. The contractor stated that the resident had advised that she was leaving the property due to problems with condensation.
The resident was advised on 31 January 2022 that an extractor cooker hood would not be fitted and she agreed that the landlord would install a standard extractor fan. An appointment was booked with the resident for 21 February 2022 and the landlord’s repairs log shows the work was completed on this date.
The landlord contacted the resident by email on 1 March 2022 and stated that it was sorry that it had not yet resolved her complaint and that a complaint officer would contact her as soon as her complaint was allocated.
On 28 March 2022 the landlord’s repair records show that an extractor fan was installed in the bedroom and repairs carried out to the bathroom extractor.
On 28 March 2022 the resident chased the landlord via its website for a response to her complaint. The landlord responded on the same day and advised that her ASB case and formal complaint remained active and that the complaint team and TMO would contact her “as soon as possible”.
The landlord’s legal team wrote to the resident and her solicitors on 14 April 2022 as she had not responded to requests to book an appointment for outstanding damp and mould works to be completed.
On 4 May 2022 the resident requested an update on her stage 2 complaint. The landlord responded on 6 May 2022 and stated that it was sorry for the delay and would provide a full update the following week. On 10 May 2022 the resident stated that she had “waited [a] very long time” and that the complaint needed to be assigned to someone.
The landlord’s tenancy management team advised its complaint team on 18 May 2022 that it had initially closed the resident’s ASB case in November 2021 due to “lack of supporting evidence”. It stated that the case was re-opened in December 2021 at the request of the resident but that she had still failed to provide supporting evidence, many visits by the police and environmental health had also failed to evidence ASB. The tenancy management team noted that counter allegation of ASB had been made about the resident and that video recordings had supported these allegations.
On 23 June 2022 the landlord’s ASB notes show that the resident had been staying in hospital for a month due to her mental health and that part of her condition was reportedly caused by stress due to the ASB she was experiencing. She reported that they were banging and slamming doors on a nightly basis.
The TMO emailed the local authority on 1 July 2022 requesting an urgent update regarding the social care referral made in October 2021. On 5 July 2022 the local authority responded that the referral had been “screened” and that there was no role for social care and that this was an ASB matter for the police.
On 27 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again chasing a response to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord responded on 31 August 2022 and apologised for the delay in its response which it stated was “awaiting review”.
On 8 August 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had rescheduled the works which had been due to take place the following day as the resident had stated she was unwell. The works had been rebooked for 15 August 2022.
On 9 September 2022 the resident signed the post inspection report stating that the required disrepair works had been completed. The only work that was not completed prior to this date was the replacement of the living room double glazed window unit. This had been booked for 15 September 2022.
The resident again chased the landlord for a stage 2 complaint response on 12 September 2022. She told the landlord that she was still living with damp and mould and was staying in hotels due to the issue which was causing her to fall into rent arrears.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 26 October 2022. Notes from the call state that the resident was “very upset” and that she said that her home was “not liveable” and requested an update on her damp and mould complaint.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 21 November 2022 to report that her neighbour was leaving cigarette ends in her garden. She stated she had been staying in a hotel due to ongoing ASB and asked for a call back. This Service hasn’t seen evidence that the landlord called the resident back.
The landlord closed the resident’s ASB case on 21 November 2022 as it stated that the resident had been unable “to provide substantial evidence to prove noise nuisance”.
The landlord’s repair records show that its contractor attended the property on 22 November 2022 to ascertain whether the mould issue had returned. It states that there was “minor mould” on the bathroom ceiling due to the extractor fan not working. The records stated that the resident “refuses to open any windows and keeps the property sealed shut”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2022 to request an update on her ASB case. She stated that she had been staying in hotels due to the noise issue from her neighbours. This Service has not seen evidence that the resident was telephoned back.
The resident chased a response to her complaint escalation again on 8 December 2022 noting that “it’s coming up to a year still nothing escalated”. The landlord replied the following day and apologised for the delay which it said was due to “changes the Ombudsman required landlords to introduce, which commenced from November 2020”.
On 12 December 2022 the landlord telephoned the resident to ascertain why she was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response. The resident said that she was unhappy because:
1. She was still experiencing damp and mould
2. She was still experiencing ASB
3. Her compensation payment had been offset against her rent arrears.
During the telephone call on 12 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that she did not have the evidence of ASB that the landlord had requested and that she had been sleeping in hotels and that this was why she had been unable to pay her rent.
The landlord’s complaint team emailed its legal team on 13 December 2022 to ascertain whether there was still an active legal disrepair case. The email stated that the disrepair complaint had been closed but that the resident had stated that she was still experiencing “extreme” damp and mould, she was unable to sleep in her bedroom, her belongings had been damaged and that her solicitor was still handling the matter.
The landlord issued its final response letter on 16 December 2022. The response stated:
1. The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing a stage 2 response.
2. The landlord took reports of ASB seriously but was unable to take the matter further as it was unable evidence the resident’s complaints.
3. The resident had acknowledged to the landlord in a telephone conversation that she did not have evidence of the ASB.
4. The landlord’s records showed that the TMO had regularly updated the resident.
5. The landlord had offset the resident’s compensation payment against her rent arrears in line with its policy.
6. The resident had signed off the damp and mould repair works on 9 September 2022. On 22 November 2022 she had reported that the mould had returned.
7. The landlord’s contractor had carried out an inspection and found a small amount of mould due to the bathroom extractor fan not working. This was repaired on 1 December 2022.
8. The landlord offered the resident £150 (which would be offset against her rent arrears), this comprised:
  1. £100 for delays in issuing its stage 2 response.
  2. £50 for the resident’s time and effort in making her complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 December 2022 and requested a callback as she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.

Events after the complaint period

The legal team responded on 19 December 2022 and stated that there had been no legal disrepair claim as the resident’s solicitors had withdrawn the claim from court. It stated that the landlord had arranged a “clean and shield” and the landlord’s contractor had said that there was no damp, only discolouration caused by condensation as the resident “refuses to open any windows and then has sealed the inside of the windows with plastic sheeting”.
On 22 December 2022 the landlord’s glazing contractor advised that it had attempted to arrange an appointment with the resident for 17 December 2022 but that she had not been available. The resident had confirmed an appointment for 21 January 2023.
On 9 January 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord and asked that the ASB officer call her back as there had been “another incident”. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord called the resident back.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2023 to report that on 6 January 2023 she had asked her neighbour why they disturbed her at night and that they had replied that they were allowed to make noise until 1am on a Friday night and had sworn at her and been verbally abusive.
The landlord’s legal team responded to the complaint team on 23 January 2023 and stated that all of the required disrepair works had been completed and signed off. The case had not been returned to the legal team as either a new legal disrepair claim or a breach of court order. It suggested that if the resident said that the damp had returned then a ‘healthy homes survey’ and damp and mould survey should be arranged.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, antisocial behaviour (ASB), and harassment

The landlord has demonstrated that it carried out a risk assessment following the resident’s reports of ASB and, due to her vulnerabilities and the alleged nature of the ASB, classified it a high-risk case.
The landlord has demonstrated that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and took appropriate and proportionate actions to ensure that she was provided support. It referred the resident to the mental health team, made a safeguarding referral to adult social care, and made referrals for additional security measures to be installed at the property.
It is noted that the landlord’s ASB policy states that it will carry out a risk assessment in all high priority cases “and where relevant on standard priority cases”. This Service considers that good practice would be for a risk assessment to be carried out in all cases as this would assist the landlord in determining the priority of a case.
The landlord liaised appropriately with the police. This Service notes that the landlord made use of provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which gives partner agencies the power and duty to share information to reduce crime and disorder. The landlord made a formal information request to the police and made regular contact for updates to see whether further incidents had been recorded and what action the police were taking. This was good practice and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The landlord also liaised with the local authority’s noise nuisance team to ascertain whether the resident had made any reports to them that would evidence noise nuisance. The landlord made clear to the resident that the local authority had statutory powers regarding noise nuisance and encouraged her to report any incidents accordingly. This was reasonable and appropriate and further evidence of good partnership working.
This Service considers that the landlord’s assessment that there was insufficient evidence to support enforcement action in this case was reasonable based on the information provided. A recommendation has however been made for the landlord to offer to refer this case for mediation.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB were reasonable and proportionate. The landlord has demonstrated good practice in partnership working and in making appropriate and sensible referrals for support for the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord’s assessment that enforcement action was not proportionate in this case was reasonable. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s ASB handling.

The landlord’s complaint handling and the landlord’s decision to offset compensation paid to the resident against rent arrears

The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided in line with the timeframe within the landlord’s complaint policy and sufficiently addressed each of the issues raised by the resident. This is good practice and was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code operated at the time.
The stage 1 complaint response stated that the resident should direct any concerns relating to the legal disrepair case to her solicitors. This was reasonable advice in the circumstances.
It took the landlord over a year to provide a stage 2 complaint response following the resident’s escalation request. This was an unreasonable delay and caused unnecessary distress to the resident, eroded her trust in the landlord and negatively impacted on the landlord-resident relationship.
Not only was the delay prolonged, but the landlord also provided no updates to the resident who instead had to contact the landlord regularly to ask why she had not received a response. Between January 2022 and November 2022 the resident requested a response to her complaint on 7 occasions.
It is of concern that the landlord apportioned responsibility for its delays on this Service stating that the delays were due to changes introduced by the Ombudsman in November 2020. Given that this was more than a year before the resident’s escalation request, this Service does not consider this a satisfactory justification for such a prolonged delay.
The landlord offered the resident £150 in compensation for its acknowledged complaint handling delays. This Service does not consider that this amount offers proportionate redress for the prolonged period of delay and an order has been made for further compensation for this issue.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offset compensation payments against rent arrears. This Service considers that the landlord should have discussed with the resident and her solicitors its intention to offset the compensation against the resident’s arrears prior to doing so.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in providing a stage 2 complaint response. This caused the resident avoidable distress, time and trouble and negatively impacted on her relationship with the landlord. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its approach to offsetting compensation payments against rent arrears.

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

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) is the procedural code which governs all actions brought in the Civil Courts in England and obliges potential claimants and defendants who wish to pursue a claim for disrepair to follow the steps/rules set out in the Housing Conditions Protocol (the Protocol) before a claim is issued in court. This is mandatory.
The resident engaged solicitors who sent the landlord the appropriate early notification letter on 12 February 2021, under the Protocol. Both parties obtained surveyors evidence and in due course an offer of settlement was made on a without prejudice basis. The Ombudsman is aware that all necessary works at the property have been completed.
In considering the resident’s complaint, this Service has considered whether the landlord has fully and fairly investigated the issues, including engaging independent expertise where appropriate, and communicated this effectively with the resident. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has done so in this case. The landlord and the resident agreed on a joint expert, appropriate repairs were carried out and signed off by the resident, and a compensation offer was made and accepted.
It is accepted that once the repairs were undertaken, the resident made further complaints. The landlord however immediately carried out follow up inspections and found that the reported issues were a result of the resident’s actions or inactions.
Following both surveyor reports the landlord was clear in the works which needed completing. Given they were significant, the landlord was right to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations regarding timescales and offer a decant. In doing so, the landlord gave consideration to the resident’s wish to be decanted with his pet. This was considerate and reasonable in the circumstances.
This Service has considered whether the landlord’s views of the facts of the case and subsequent compensation offered was reasonable. The Ombudsman appreciates that the offer of settlement reflected the evidence of the expert whose appointment was agreed by both parties and advice from the landlord’s legal department.
In doing so the landlord made a part 36 offer. It accepted that works to address the damp and mould needed to be carried out and agreed the schedule of works proposed by the joint expert. It offered the resident £1,000 compensation and, with the advice of her solicitors, the resident accepted this settlement amount. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance, antisocial behaviour (ASB), and harassment.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and the landlord’s decision to offset compensation paid to the resident against rent arrears.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolve the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord responded reasonably and in line with its own policy and good practice to the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord’s assessment that there was insufficient evidence to warrant taking further action in this case was reasonable.
The landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonably slow and caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble and distress.
The landlord acted reasonably when it considered expert advice from an independent surveyor and its legal department prior to making a part 36 offer under CPR. It carried out the agreed works to address the damp and mould as quickly as possibly considering the challenges it faced in accessing the property. The landlord’s compensation offer of £1,000 was accepted by the resident who had access to legal advice. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable constituted an offer of redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience due to complaint handling delays. The compensation ordered is in addition to the £1150 previously paid by the landlord.
The landlord to carry out an exercise to determine how many stage 2 complaint responses are currently overdue by more than 3 months and develop an action plan for addressing these cases. The landlord should provide this Service with a report regarding this issue within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord offer to refer this ASB case for mediation. The landlord should advise this Service of its position in relation to this recommendation within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord to review its approach to risk assessments in ASB cases and is urged to consider carrying out a risk assessment in standard priority as well as high priority cases. The landlord should advise this Service of its position in relation to this recommendation within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord to review its approach to offsetting compensation payments against rent arrears. The landlord should advise this Service of its position in relation to this within 6 weeks of the date of the report.