London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202343946)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343946

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 August 2025

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould and a subsequent pest infestation.
2. Request to move due to overcrowding.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom house. She lives there with her 4 children.
On 27 October 2022 the resident’s legal representative wrote to the landlord under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims (the Protocol). It said she had reported damp and mould at the property since 2019, which was unresolved. An out of court settlement was reached on 20 March 2023. The landlord agreed to pay the resident £1,500 compensation and complete a schedule of repairs. The repairs were completed on 8 August 2023.
On 12 October 2023 the resident reported the mould had returned to her property. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 25 October 2023. The resident made further reports of mould in November 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord on 16 December 2023. She said she was still experiencing mould growth in all rooms, and this was impacting the health of her family. The resident also complained her property was overcrowded and no longer suitable for her family’s needs.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 March 2024. It said it was unable to rehouse the resident but would arrange for a surveyor to attend the property to investigate the damp and mould further.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 October 2024. The landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response on 12 November 2024. It said it had taken steps to resolve the issue, and its specialist damp and mould contractor recommended a 3-stage mould treatment that would be carried out.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her correspondence with us, the resident has raised other matters that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 12 November 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
This investigation will not consider the adequacy of the settlement reached and the proposed timescales for the works, as the landlord settled these matters with the resident via an agreement under the Protocol. We will, however, look at how the landlord responded when it was made aware the mould had returned and how it responded to her complaint. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 9 August 2023 to 12November 2024.This being the date after the agreed works were completed, through to when the landlord issued the stage 2 response. We consider this a fair timescale for both parties due to the passage of time and availability of evidence.
The resident has informed us how the issues have impacted on her family. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

Damp and mould

On 12 October 2023 the resident reported the mould had returned to her property. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 25 October 2023.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the guttering, downpipes, internal walls, and floors of the property.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states following a report of damp and mould, it will:
1. Complete an assessment of the property within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem.
2. Raise any necessary repairs within 10 working days of the assessment.
The policy is silent on timescales for completing a repair. The landlord’s repairs policy, published online, states routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
The evidence shows the landlord carried out the mould wash on 25 October 2023 in line with its policy timescales. However, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have carried out an assessment of the damp and mould in line with its policy at that stage, given its earlier repairs had not resolved the issue.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 November 2023 and reported the windows had mould and water present between the glazing. The landlord raised a repair the same day.
On 16 December 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was experiencing “persistent issues” with damp and mould at the property. The resident also raised concerns regarding the property being overcrowded (discussed later in this report). She asked for a comprehensive inspection to be carried out at the property and for effective repairs to be made.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that where a damp and mould problem is perpetuated by overcrowding, it will ensure appropriate referrals are made to the relevant internal teams who can support the tenant. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord made a referral for the resident at this stage.
The landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the property on 21 December 2023, in line with its damp and mould policy timescales. The landlord has been unable to provide us with a copy of inspection report. However, its notes show 2 repairs were raised following the visit. These were:
1. Replace rubber seal / glass UPVC due to extreme condensation in between the glass in the second bedroom.
2. Remove black mould from bedrooms, bathroom, and kitchen.
The evidence shows the mould wash was raised and attended within the landlord’s repair policy timescales. However, the resident had already raised the window issue over a month earlier. The landlord attended the window repair on 31 January 2024, 52 days after the repair was initially raised and outside of the repair policy timescales. This was unreasonable. The landlord’s notes recorded parts were required and a return visit was necessary.
On 22 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord again regarding the damp and mould. She said mould continued to grow rapidly in all rooms and she believed its presence was impacting the health of her family. The resident said there was water dripping from the ceiling and she was concerned about the electrical sockets in her home.
The landlord attended the resident’s property at a date that is not clear, but was in February or March 2024, to fit new extractor fans. From the documentation provided it is unclear when the landlord identified the need for this repair, as its earlier notes stated the fans were working correctly. There is also no evidence to suggest that during this visit the landlord addressed the concerns raised by the resident on 22 February 2024.
The landlord called the resident on 4 March 2024. Its notes of the call recorded ventilation of the property had been discussed and it would discuss the matter further with its maintenance team.
The following day the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for “any trouble” caused. The landlord said:
1. The resident continued to get “condensation” in the property and extractor fans had recently been fitted.
2. It had attended the property 3 times in the previous 12 months to carry out a mould wash.
3. It would arrange for the surveyor to investigate the issue further.
4. It provided some suggestions as to how the resident could reduce condensation and mould within the property.
The evidence shows the landlord failed to act on the resident’s concerns regarding her electrical sockets being exposed to water as part of its response. The failure to do so was a potential health and safety risk. The landlord’s failure to identify this was significant.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 11 March 2024. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the inspection report. However, the landlord emailed the resident the following day to confirm the discussions that had taken place at the visit. It said:
1. The window vents had been closed, and this may have contributed to the continual condensation and mould on the ceilings.
2. There had been an improvement since its last inspection.
3. It would issue the resident with decoration vouchers due to the mould damage.
The landlord left a voicemail for the resident on 15 May 2025 to say it would attend the property the next day to complete the repair to the windows. The resident was not home when the landlord attended, and the job was cancelled. This was unreasonable given the landlord had not confirmed the appointment with the resident before attending. Furthermore, the appointment was 6 months after the original repair had been raised. This delay was also unreasonable.
The resident reported no further issues with mould until 8 October 2024 when she told the landlord the mould had returned to the kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom of the property. The landlord’s contractor attended the property the following day to complete a mould wash. This was quicker than the timescales set out in its policy. However, the landlord’s contractor reported there was no mould present, but there was an infestation of mould mites.
The landlord raised a job to treat the infestation the following day. It attended the property on 16 October 2024 to carry out a further inspection. This was reasonable given the conflicting information received from its contractor regarding the presence of mould. The landlord’s notes recorded mould was present in the property, and as such a specialised damp inspection was needed. The roof and guttering also needed to be inspected.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 October 2024. She said she had been unable to use her kitchen since the mould mites had been discovered, and this was causing her problems with feeding her children. The landlord’s notes of the conversation recorded she was “quite distressed”.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property to carry out the pest control treatment on 21 October 2024. This was within its repair policy timescales. However, the treatment consisted of 3-stages over set periods of time, with further treatments scheduled for 30 October and 27 November 2024. The treatment schedule meant the resident would be without a kitchen for almost 2 months.
On 24 October 2024 the landlord’s notes show it requested temporary accommodation for the resident, until the property had been returned to a “habitable standard”. Further notes recorded the resident’s mental health had been affected, she was not coping well with the property in its current state. The notes said the landlord was “unsure” as to where the mould was coming from. On 26 October 2024 the resident informed the landlord she had been to hospital with an asthma attack, which she believed was caused by the mould in her property. The landlord’s internal request for temporary accommodation was rejected by the “Rehousing Panel” on 30 October 2024, and the landlord referred the resident to its Resident Support Team. The landlord has not provided information as to why the request for temporary accommodation was declined.
The landlord has provided us with a copy of its rehousing policy. However, the document provided is dated 2021 and there is no current version available on its website. Under this policy the landlord can provide a temporary move for tenants if there is a risk to their health or there are planned works to take place at the property.
The policy sets out the rehousing options the landlord can consider in these circumstances, which include:
1. The tenant staying with friends or family.
2. The local authority.
3. Another landlord owned property.
4. B&B, hotel, or other accommodation.
It is accepted the landlord may not have had suitable properties to offer the resident and her family from its own stock. However, the landlord has failed to evidence it considered other rehousing options, as set out in its policy.
The landlord’s damp specialist contractor completed a visit to the property on 28 October 2024. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the inspection report. Its notes suggest a mould treatment was recommended. However, the evidence provided does not show the cause of the mould has been identified.
On 12 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. Its latest inspection on 26 October 2024 revealed there was no damp, but a lack of airflow within the property was causing the mould to return.
2. The resident was advised how to better ventilate the property and use mould products to prevent further growth.
3. The pest treatment contractor had started to treat the mites but had said the source of the mould needed to be resolved before the treatment was completed.
4. A damp and mould specialist contractor attended the property on 28 October 2024 and advised a 3-stage mould treatment was required in the bedroom and bathrooms. A quote for the work was being reviewed.
5. If the resident wanted to make a claim for damage to personal belongings and / or personal injury, she would need to go through her home contents insurance or to the landlord’s insurance team. However, compensation was not guaranteed.
The response did not acknowledge any failing on the landlord’s part, and it did not reassure the resident the source of the mould had been located. Instead, it set out the works it planned to do, work it had previously completed and was ineffective at stopping the mould returning. The response also failed to demonstrate empathy to the resident’s situation.
Paragraph 4.1 of the landlord’s compensation policy states it may offer compensation when:
1. It fails to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are its responsibility, and the customer is living in poor conditions longer than is reasonable.
2. A customer has to pay for something due to the landlord’s inaction, delay, or negligence such as the extra cost of food if they have no cooking facilities.
The policy also states compensation may be awarded for distress and inconvenience, and for loss of facilities or amenities. The landlord made no offer of compensation to the resident. Given the prevailing circumstances, the failure to offer compensation as per its policy was unreasonable.
Following the stage 2 response, the third round of pest control took place on 27 November 2024. This appears to have been ineffective as the landlord raised an urgent job on 6 December 2024 to treat the resident’s kitchen for mould mites again. It is unclear when the work was carried out. The mould treatment recommended by the damp specialist contractor was completed on 12 March 2025, over 4 months after the recommendation was made. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s policy timescales and unreasonable.
The resident has told us the landlord carried out a further inspection of her property on 25 March 2025. The landlord’s report noted the kitchen was “still unkempt and not being used”. However, the report did not confirm the issues with damp and mould mites had been resolved. The resident told us the mould and mould mites are still present at the property, and she has “given up” contacting the landlord about the issue. This is indicative of the resident losing confidence in the landlord’s ability to provide its services and a break down in the landlord / tenant relationship.
In summary, while the landlord initially acted quickly to remove the mould when it returned, its actions were ineffective in identifying the cause of mould growth. When the mould reappeared in October 2023, the landlord failed to adequately investigate why it had returned, despite the previous repairs it had carried out.
When the landlord did carry out inspections, the evidence suggests they were ineffective. The inspections repeatedly identified the need for mould wash but never got to the cause of the issue. The evidence shows that to date, the landlord does not know why the mould is returning.
While some remedial repairs were identified through the inspections, the repairs were not always completed. The window repair job was cancelled after one failed visit to the property. The surveyor’s recommendation to inspect the roof and guttering in October 2024 was never acted upon.
The landlord also failed to address a potential health and safety issue when the resident raised concerns regarding the dripping water and her electrical outlets.
The impact on the resident has been substantial. While it is accepted there were periods of time when the mould did not appear, the resident was still subject to issues with mould growth and the presence of mould mites for a prolonged period. She has concerns for the health of her children and her states her own physical and mental has suffered as a result. The resident has been unable to use her kitchen since the mites were discovered 10 months ago. This has led to an increase in expenditure on food due to being unable to cook and has impacted the family’s diet.
The evidence shows the landlord was aware of the impact on the resident and considered temporary accommodation for the resident until the issues were resolved. While this was unsuccessful, the landlord failed to evidence it had considered all of the alternative rehousing options its policy outlined.
This combination of failings leads to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling and damp and mould and the subsequent pest infestation. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £2,070 to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there have been serious failings by the landlord over a significant period of time and where the landlord repeatedly failed to provide a service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The compensation is made up of:
1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £1,070 (rounded up) compensation based on the equivalent partial cost of rent (15%) for loss of all kitchen facilities. This amount is calculated from November 2024 (when the landlord could have reasonably taken action to address the issue) to the present day. This is made up of:
  1. October 2024 to March 2025 (21 weeks x (15% of £168.74) = £531.53
  2. April 2025 to August 2025 (21 weeks x (25% of £170.12) = £535.88

Overcrowding

When the resident began her tenancy, the allocation of the property size was appropriate for her circumstances. However, over time, her family has grown, leading to the property becoming overcrowded.
On 24 April 2019 the resident applied for a transfer, which was approved by the landlord. However, in March 2021, the landlord closed the transfer list due to a shortage in housing stock. It wrote to all affected residents at the time and advised them on other ways they could attempt to secure a property move.
In her complaint dated 16 December 2023, the resident said her living conditions were no longer suitable for her family as the property was overcrowded. She asked the landlord to rectify the situation. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 February 2024 and repeated her concern that the property was overcrowded.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 5 March 2024 the landlord said:
1. Due to shortages in its housing stock, it had taken the decision to suspend all referrals to its rehousing service, unless the there was a priority need such as a threat to life or a requirement for adaptions.
2. The resident did not meet the criteria to be considered for rehousing.
3. The resident could consider contacting her local council or apply for a mutual exchange as options to move property.
The landlord’s website sets out the criteria in which it would consider an application to be rehoused. This includes there being a threat to life or the tenant having significant medical needs that cannot be accommodated for in their current property. In relation to overcrowding, the website states it is unable to consider applications on these grounds and signposts tenants to other housing options. The landlord’s response was therefore in line with its policy and was reasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 17 October 2024. She contacted the landlord again 5 days later to repeat her concern about being overcrowded.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 November 2024 and said:
1. The rehousing process was resident driven and relied upon the resident actively seeking a move.
2. It was subject to the government’s nomination agreement that required 100% of its properties in the borough to be re-let to applicants from the local authority.
3. The property was suitable for the resident’s needs upon let and it was under no obligation to provide her with a larger property.
In summary, the landlord has been open about the restrictions on its ability to provide rehousing since it closed its transfer list 4 years ago. It contacted affected residents by letter at the time and provided advice on alternative housing options. The resident’s circumstances did not fit the criteria for rehousing set out on the landlord’s website. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to support the resident’s rehousing application was reasonable and one it was entitled to make given the restrictions it was subject to. The evidence shows the landlord did offer advice and support on other means of obtaining a property.
This leads to a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of overcrowding.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 5 working days.
2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
3. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
On 16 December 2023 the resident sent an email to the landlord’s chief executive. The email clearly stated she was making a “formal complaint”. The landlord responded to the resident 2 days later and asked for her address so her “concerns” could be directed to the appropriate team. The resident provided her address the same day.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 February 2024 and reiterated her complaint. The landlord recorded the complaint on 4 March 2024, 7 working days later and almost 3 months after the resident first made her complaint. The evidence shows the landlord failed to record the complaint in line with its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 March 2024. The response failed to acknowledge its failure to record the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 October 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 November 2024, in line with its policy timescales. The response failed to acknowledge the initial delay in recording the resident’s complaint.
While the landlord’s complaint handling was, in the main, in line with its policy, its failure to recognise and record the resident’s complaint when she first submitted it, delayed the overall time required to provide resolution of this complaint. This leads to a determination of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident for the time and trouble caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of overcrowding.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from the chief executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £2,170 compensation, made up of:
  1. £2,070 for its failures in handling reports of damp and mould and a subsequent pest infestation.
  2. £100 for its failures in complaint handling.
3. Appoint a suitably qualified independent surveyor to carry out an inspection of the property to identify the cause of the mould and the repairs that need to be completed. We have ordered an independent surveyor because the landlord’s own inspections to date have been unable to identify the cause of the issue and to provide the resident with confidence in the process. By independent we mean someone with relevant qualifications to carry out the inspection and who has not been involved in inspecting the property previously. A copy of the inspection report must be provided to the resident and us. The inspection must:
  1. Set out the cause of the issues.
  2. Contain photographs of the areas affected.
  3. Set out whether the property is fit for human habitation or whether suitable temporary accommodation is required.
  4. Identify the repairs needed to address the mould and infestation issue.
4. Following receipt of the inspection report the landlord must provide us and the resident with a schedule of works, including time frames, and how it will support the resident if temporary accommodation is required.
5. Within 9 weeks of the date of this report provide evidence that it has commenced the works or provide reasons and evidence as to why it has not / cannot start the work within these timescales, together with amended start times.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.