Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202320835)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320835

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of a leak in the property and resulting damp and mould.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat. He lived in the property with his children. The resident and some of his children had health conditions. He has since left the property.
  2. On 1 March 2022 the landlord completed a damp and mould assessment in the resident’s home. It found that there was damp and mould in most rooms of the property and completed a mould wash. It noted that the underlying cause was overcrowding, inadequate heating and inadequate ventilation. It also stated that the bath was damaged causing water to leak onto the bathroom floor, and the radiator base in the bathroom was rusting and there was possibly a hole. This was causing the boiler pressure to drop.
  3. On 28 March 2022 the landlord raised a works order for it to attend to a leak in the bathroom. On 19 April 2022 the landlord noted that the leak was uncontainable and was spreading to the living room and the carpet in the hallway.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 10 May 2022. He advised that the leak had been ongoing for 4 weeks and that it had caused damage to his carpets and walls. He said there were people with health conditions in the property, and they were being affected by the damp.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 May 2022. It stated a plumber had attended on 26 April 2022 and confirmed it needed to install a new bath. It stated that it had booked an appointment for it to replace the bath on 10 May 2022, and it would contact the contractor to get the outcome of this appointment. It advised that the resident would need to claim for any damage to personal items through its insurance and gave the resident the details. It apologised for the delay in resolving the repair.
  6. On 12 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the leak was ongoing, and he was worried a wall in his flat was going to collapse. He advised the damp was affecting his son’s health. On 30 July 2022 the resident moved out of the flat. He said this was due to the ongoing issues with damp and mould.
  7. On 16 August 2022, the landlord offered £100 compensation. This was based on the leak being uncontained for 8 weeks. The resident did not accept this. He said the council had had to move him out because the property was not fit for habitation. He also said the leak had affected the property for 9 weeks. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £150 on 18 August 2022. The resident was not happy with this offer and the landlord advised it would leave the complaint in the escalation queue for a stage 2 response.
  8. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 5 January 2023. It stated that the resident informed it on 22 July 2022 that he was vacating the property due to damp and mould. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and offered £100 for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response. It offered £40 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the leak and upheld the offer of £150 previously offered. It awarded a further £20 for time and effort.
  9. The resident refused the compensation offer and advised he felt £2000 was reasonable.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak in the property and resulting damp and mould.

  1. When the landlord completed the mould report, it was aware that there was a damaged bath and a possible hole in the radiator. Both repairs were a source of water leaks. The landlord noted that the radiator leak was causing the boiler pressure to drop, and that another source of damp and mould was inadequate heating. As these repairs were both contributing to damp and mould the landlord should have considered whether it needed to raise these repairs as urgent.  We have seen no evidence that the landlord raised any repair for these items until the resident reported a more significant leak from the bathroom on 28 March 2022. At this time it appears it raised repairs for the bath, but there is no evidence to support that the repair to the radiator was raised or completed at any point before the resident moved out. The landlord did not address all underlying causes of damp and mould.
  2. In the damp and mould report the landlord had noted that the primary causes of the damp and mould were overcrowding, poor ventilation and inadequate heating. It also noted that the resident was not following best practices. The Ombudsman produced its spotlight report on damp and mould, “It’s not lifestyle”, in October 2021. This highlighted the importance of not placing blame on the resident in damp and mould cases, and ensuring route causes where understood. In this case, we consider that the disrepair likely contributed to the damp and mould in the property. We recognise that the landlord has since assessed itself against the spotlight report, since the date of this complaint and has made improvements to its policies and procedures, which is positive.
  3. When the resident reported the leak on 28 March 2022, the landlord should have taken emergency action to contain this. We have not seen evidence that the landlord carried out any repairs to the bathroom between this date and 19 April 2022, when the landlord noted that the leak was spreading throughout the property. We have not seen evidence that the landlord took urgent action to repair the leak, which may have resulted in the problem worsening.
  4. Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 landlords must ensure that a home is fit for human habitation. This means that the home should be safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm. The landlord was aware that there was a leak which was spreading, leading to damp and damage in the property. It was also aware that there were residents with medical conditions. We would expect the landlord to conduct a risk assessment and if the property could not be made safe, it should have considered a temporary decant until it could complete the repairs. We have not seen evidence that the landlord considered whether these actions were appropriate.
  5. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that the bath replacement was in progress and should have been completed on 10 May 2022. We have not seen evidence this took place on this date. In the landlord’s later responses it said that it repaired the leak on 18 May 2022. The landlord has not provided a reason or supporting evidence as to why it took until 18 May 2022 to repair the leak. In the absence of a reason for the delay, we consider this unreasonable, as the repair was having a continuous impact on the property.
  6. On 13 May 2022 the landlord noted that the resident had concerns a wall was falling down due to the damp. The landlord said in its records it needed to check this urgently. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord attended to the concern by conducting an inspection of the relevant area. While we do not dispute the resident’s version of events, we have also not seen any evidence that there was damage to the wall and there were no structural repairs noted as part of the later remedial works. 
  7. On 24 May 2022 the landlord noted that it had raised a job for redecoration in the property following leak damage and that it had internally enquired about carpet replacement. The landlord demonstrated it considered how it could address the damage that had occurred. The landlord attempted to call the resident on 3 dates between 1 June 2022 and 9 June 2022 to arrange the repairs. The landlord has demonstrated that it was trying to act to put things right.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 June 2022 to say that there was still damage to his home. The landlord advised that it had closed the job down as it had not received a response from earlier contact attempts. As noted above, we recognise the landlord took action to try and complete the repairs. However, when the resident did not respond to the calls, the landlord should have considered alternative methods of communication. We also consider that as the repairs involved damp, which is a risk under Housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), the landlord should have considered keeping the repair open while it made further contact attempts.
  9. On 22 July 2022 the landlord noted that it had completed a mould wash. This was an appropriate action in response to reports of mould, following the leak.
  10. The resident has advised the council moved him to a private property on 30 July 2022. We have not seen evidence that the landlord had completed all repairs at this time. However, we understand that it had repaired the leak and treated the mould. We also note the landlord had made attempts to complete other remedial repairs. We have not seen any report from the council on the grounds on which it moved the resident. While we recognise that the resident felt he had to move due to health and safety issues for him and his family, we do not have sufficient evidence to confirm that this was the reason for the move.
  11. Whilst the landlord has recognised some of its failures, we consider that the compensation does not fully reflect the impact on the resident. The landlord was aware of a damaged bath that has been causing water ingress since 1 March 2022. The landlord has acknowledged that for 9 weeks between 1 March 2022 and 18 May 2022 there was an uncontainable leak, which spread through the property. We note that some of the delay in completing remedial works was due to the resident’s actions, however the landlord also could have taken further steps to complete the repairs. We have not seen that the landlord considered the vulnerability of the residents and any potential risk, despite known health conditions in the property. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the property which caused damp and mould.
  12. When considering an appropriate remedy we have taken into consideration that the resident no longer lives in the property and as the issue occurred more than 2 years ago no repairs orders would be appropriate. We further acknowledge that while there were failures made by the landlord, the landlord has since changed its damp and mould policy and repairs policy. It is therefore not appropriate to make any orders or recommendations for the landlord to make improvements in these areas, based on events that took place prior to the changes. We have therefore focussed on compensation only.
  13. The landlord offered £150 for delays to repair, £40 for distress inconvenience and £20 for time and trouble. We consider the total of £210 addresses some of the landlord’s failings. This includes not raising a repair for the bath when it was first identified, failing to address all underlying causes of damp and mould and not considering the potential risks to the resident.
  14. The leak which spread through the property would have affected the enjoyment of the home and we have not seen anything which supports why the landlord could not repair the leak earlier. We do not believe that any room was unusable, however there is evidence that there was damp spreading and that this impacted several rooms. This included a damp hall carpet. We therefore consider a rent-based calculation based on loss of enjoyment of the home to be appropriate. We have awarded 20% over the 9 weeks the leak was uncontained. The weekly rent was £138.52. The compensation amounts to £250.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days. The landlord responded in 1 working day, which was within the timescales in its policy. In the stage 1 response the landlord noted a repair which should have been completed the day before it issued the response. It may have been beneficial for the landlord to have obtained an update on the repair before it issued the stage 1 response.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. On 12 May 2022, the resident advised he was not happy with the response. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 5 January 2023. This was 164 working days which was outside of its complaints handling timescales.
  3. We are aware that at the time of the complaint, the landlord had a substantial backlog of stage 2 complaints, which is why there was a significant delay. We have seen evidence that the landlord attempted to negotiate an increased compensation, to prevent the resident from needing to wait for a stage 2 response. While this did not prevent the complaint going to stage 2, we consider that the landlord was attempting to resolve the matter with the resident at the earliest opportunity.
  4. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay in the stage 2 response. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable offer. This is because, although there was a significant delay in issuing the stage 2 response, the resident had moved out. Therefore the impact of the ongoing complaint was minimal, as there were no outstanding issues other than compensation. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has made a number of improvements to its complaint handling since the time the stage 2 was issued. As such no recommendations have been made for it to assess itself based on the events of this investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak in the property and the resulting damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £560 compensation to the resident within 4 weeks of this report being issued. This can be reduced by the amounts offered at stage 1 and 2, if the landlord has already made these payments. This is made up of:
    1. £150 offered to the resident at stage 1 of the complaints process.
    2. £40 for distress and inconvenience.
    3. £20 for time and effort
    4. £250 for loss of enjoyment of the home, which was calculated as 20% over a 9 week period.
    5. £100 for complaints handling.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman.