From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202331601)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331601

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 June 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Reports of required repairs following a fire.
    3. Move to temporary accommodation.
    4. Associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom, 3-storey maisonette, in a block which has 11 storeys. She moved to the property by way of mutual exchange in March 2021 and lives with her 4 children. The landlord, a housing association, leases the building from a third party freeholder. It is aware of the resident and her daughter’s disabilities and medical concerns.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 September 2021, stating that she had “severe” damp in her property. She said she complained months before but received no response. She said that her neighbour was experiencing the same issue and despite 2 surveyor visits, there was no plan for the work. She reported that the whole of the ground floor was out of use due to her daughter’s respiratory issues and that the mould had caused damage to her belongings.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 September 2021. It confirmed that its damp and mould specialist had visited and their report was with its surveyor to arrange the work. It advised her to claim for her damaged possessions via her contents or its own insurance.
  4. The resident responded the same day expressing her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She referred to there being water ingress to the building and large scale work required but no timescales. She wrote further on 4 occasions repeating her concerns and dissatisfaction. She said that she would seek legal advice and contact her MP if she received no response. The landlord sent a further stage 1 response and upheld her complaint. It did not provide a stage 2 response but on 17 June 2022 it offered £500 compensation.
  5. The resident raised a further complaint to the landlord on 4 May 2022 following a fire in her home. She was unhappy with the temporary accommodation it had provided and its progression of the required repairs.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 May 2022. It set out the events of the fire and subsequent flooding caused by the sprinkler system. It acknowledged that she felt let down by the temporary accommodation and confirmed that its maintenance team was working to repair her home as soon as possible. It apologised for the disruption and upset.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint the same day. She said it had allocated her a property which was unfurnished and too small. She said it had not begun the drying out process of her home and it was full of mould.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 16 January 2024. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to investigate her complaint and acknowledged the significant time she spent chasing for updates. It referred to outstanding repairs to the boiler/tank insulation, fire doors, and fire sprinkler and said it had raised repair orders. It had also requested an inspection of the building for water ingress. It offered £1,450 compensation comprising:
    1. £400 for distress.
    2. £400 for inconvenience.
    3. £200 for time and effort.
    4. £300 for its delayed stage 2 response.
    5. £150 for its lack of communication.
  9. The landlord’s total offer of compensation for both complaints was £1,950.
  10. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She told us that there are outstanding repairs and she continues to experience electrical issues which she believes are due to building structural issues. She wants it to complete all repairs, a full inspection of the building, and increase its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence she said that the situation was causing stress, anxiety, and affecting her mental health. She added that her daughter’s skin condition had been exacerbated by the lack of laundry facilities in temporary accommodation and she was subsequently admitted to hospital.
  2. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any distress and inconvenience likely caused by any failings by the landlord.
  3. The resident also stated that she believed the landlord was discriminating against her due to her and her daughter’s disabilities. Allegations of hate or discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further, using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that following a report of damp and mould it will complete an assessment within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem. Any work identified will be raised to its maintenance team within 10 working days of the assessment. Where multiple fixes are required, it will be clear with resident’s on timescales and keep them informed.
  2. In the resident’s complaint she said that she reported her concerns to the landlord months before but received no response. While we do not dispute this, we have not seen any evidence prior to her raising her complaint on 28 September 2021. She expressed concerns that the damp and mould was “severe” and explained her daughter’s health conditions. She said that the landlord’s surveyor and specialist contractor attended on 19 and 23 September 2021 but there was no plan to address the issue.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it confirmed that it had recently inspected the resident’s home and received its contractor report. It said its surveyor would contact her to advise on the work and timescales. It had informed the surveyor of her daughter’s health condition and gave advice on how to claim via insurance for any damaged belongings. Its response was appropriate in acknowledging her concerns and it demonstrated that it acted promptly in completing inspections in line with its policy. Its advice to claim for damaged belongings via insurance was reasonable.
  4. The resident responded the same day stating that the landlord’s response was “not satisfactory”. She said she had invested a lot of money in decorating her home and asked it when a surveyor would instruct contractors to find the source of the water ingress. She added that the rear of the building and car park was saturated with water. This was causing her anxiety as she was aware of buildings collapsing with similar issues.
  5. The landlord’s records of 4 October 2021 suggest that there was a larger issue with the building allowing water ingress. It referred to construction failings which may demand a recall from the construction company. It said it would send a copy of a report which requested a leak detection to each property and it required the building specification as there were unusual characteristics. It was also seeking timescales as to when engineers and surveyors would assess and look to rectify the issue.
  6. Further records of 12 October 2021 suggest that the damp and mould was significant enough to warrant the resident moving to temporary accommodation. But there is no evidence it discussed this with the resident at the time, something which would have been appropriate given its knowledge of the building defect and her daughters respiratory issues.
  7. The resident told the landlord on 17 October 2021 that she had further damage to belongings and her stepson had nowhere to sleep as the mould had ruined her sofa. She reported that the walls either side of her property were “mould riddled”. She said another contractor had attended the week before but did not look at the adjacent walls. She wrote further on 2 November 2021 stating that it had not responded since she replied to its stage 1 response. She asked it what action was being taken. We have seen no evidence that any work was completed during this time or that the landlord provided a response.
  8. However, the landlord sent a second stage 1 response on 10 November 2021. It said its maintenance manager was dealing with her case and it had chased for an update. It would contact her the next day and keep the complaint open until it agreed a resolution. Although it said it upheld the resident’s complaint due to the ongoing damp and mould, the landlord failed to offer any redress. We have also seen no evidence that it updated the resident the following day as promised, or confirmed what action it was taking.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2021. She said that the damp and mould was ongoing and her neighbour’s wall was collapsing. It told her to get the neighbour to make contact. The following day it moved the neighbour to temporary accommodation. It is not known why the landlord did not consider moving the resident and her family at this time given its records of October 2021 referred to this. It noted the job as being “huge” and that it was meeting with the freeholder of the building.
  10. The resident chased the landlord on 30 November 2021. She asked what it was doing about the water in the lift shafts and damp. She wrote further on 6 December 2021 stating she was still waiting for a response to her complaint and that she had given “ample opportunities” for it to respond with updates. She asked what the plan was for the tenants of the block stating it was more than just a leak, it was “a huge ground issue”. Her repeated chasing for updates would have caused time and trouble and likely added to her frustration and distress. It did not demonstrate that it followed its damp and mould policy and its poor communication is a failing.
  11. The landlord’s records show that it spoke with the resident on 10 December 2021 about temporary accommodation but she said she preferred to wait until the new year due to the Christmas period. It said that no work would commence at that time and someone would contact her in the new year. We have seen no evidence to show that it contacted her in January 2022 about moving to temporary accommodation or a plan to address the mould. It is not known if the landlord took any action to reduce the mould up to this point.
  12. The landlord’s records of May 2022 noted that several residents were in temporary accommodation from the block and an adjoining block. It referred to there appearing to be an issue with water ingress into homes which was affecting electrics and shorting out white goods. It also referred to the resident and others having “major damp issues”. It said it needed to question what level of work it was liable for as it would not usually have responsibility for anything major like ground works or structural issues for a leasehold building. It said it was unsure of the longer term plan but the resident was currently “decanted” due to a fire. It is concerning that the landlord was aware of the building defect in October 2021 but unsure of its responsibilities 7 months later.
  13. The landlord’s records of May 2022 also referred to needing to understand the series of events leading to the fire. It was told this was due to “inherent damp from a building defect”. It is important to note that we have not seen any evidence relating to the cause of the fire. But given its knowledge of the defect, its awareness of the significant damp and mould, it did not demonstrate having due regard for the resident and her family’s welfare. While the resident was moved to temporary accommodation due to the fire in April 2022, it should have considered arranging this in January 2022 as stated earlier.
  14. While the landlord provided no stage 2 complaint response, it wrote to the resident on 17 June 2022 offering £500 compensation due to the damp in the property. It is reasonable to assume that its offer related to this complaint rather than her subsequent complaint about the fire. It told the resident on 27 June 2022 that the building owners had accepted they would take the lead on the prevention works needed for the drainage. It was chasing to get timescales and explained that it had not been straight forward as it involved solicitors and other teams. Its solicitor was pursuing the freeholder to make a start on the required work and it would provide an update as soon as possible.
  15. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in January 2024, over 2 years later relating to the fire, said it would inspect the water ingress and update the resident. This suggests that the matter was ongoing and it is not known whether the freeholder undertook the drainage work, or if it undertook a further inspection.
  16. In summary, while we appreciate that the freeholder may have had responsibility to address the water ingress to the building, the landlord had a responsibility to the resident. It failed to consider any detriment or make appropriate arrangements to move her to temporary accommodation until the fire in April 2022, 7 months later. Essentially, it would appear that despite the severity of the issues, the landlord may never have considered moving the resident if there had not been a fire. Its £500 compensation offer was not proportionate to the delays she experienced from September 2021 or its communication failings.
  17. We conclude that the inconvenience to the resident was excessive in this case. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the £500 offered in June 2022 if not already paid, and an additional sum of £250. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a significant impact on the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Reports of required repairs following a fire

  1. As stated above, there was a fire in the resident’s home on 26 April 2022. The landlord’s records refer to an electrical fire caused by her tumble dryer. The fire activated the fire sprinkler system which subsequently caused flooding and water damage. The resident was moved to a hotel the same day.
  2. It is not disputed that there were delays and communication failings with the landlord’s handling of the matter. When there are failings, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord’s records of 5 May 2022 referred to being unable to install dehumidifiers due to the electric being switched off. It asked for the job to be “taken in hand” and confirmed to the resident that it was working to repair her home. It said it needed to ensure it was safe before she could move back in. This was reasonable given the nature of the incident.
  4. Further records of 10 May 2022 refer to “news so far is this was caused by dampness from a building defect causing a white goods fire”. We have not seen evidence of the cause of the fire such as a fire report. Our assessment is based on how the landlord managed the situation and responded to the resident. It raised orders the same day to make good the plasterwork throughout the property along with renewing the flooring and kitchen units.
  5. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that it would complete the above work and said it would continue to push for completion as soon as possible. It empathised with the resident’s situation and apologised for the upset. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances but it would have been helpful for it to have given an estimated timescale to complete the work and when she would likely be able to return home.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint the same day stating the landlord had not commenced any work. She said that the property was still wet, it had not started the drying out process, and no one had been in contact. She chased it on 5 June 2022 stating there was no water or electric in the property. While we appreciate this would have likely been frustrating for the resident, it is not unreasonable to assume that the landlord was liaising with its insurance and fire teams. However, it did not demonstrate keeping the resident informed resulting in her chasing for updates.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 June 2022. She said that the plastering work had been scheduled for September 2022. She asked if it would redecorate and if it would replace the doors and frames. She said it had been 9 weeks since the fire and no contractor had “set foot” in the property. She continued to chase for updates on 20, 22 and 27 June 2022 asking for timescales. She added that the kitchen repairs were scheduled for 4 August 2022 and asked if it would be replacing the skirting boards. We have not seen a response from the landlord confirming a schedule of work. This again demonstrates that it was not keeping her informed.
  8. On 29 June 2022, the resident advised the landlord that the dehumidifiers required emptying. She said she was unable to lift the water buckets. It is not known whether the resident was permitted access to the property during the repair works or if it considered any health and safety risks during this time which is concerning.
  9. The landlord’s contractor attended the property in July 2022 to treat and remove black mould. They completed the work on 14 July 2022. The following day the resident informed it that mould was still present on the staircase. She added that the dehumidifiers were leaking all over the floor. As stated previously, it is concerning that the resident was permitted access to the property prior to repairs taking place.
  10. The landlord confirmed that it would visit the property with her on 27 July 2022 to complete an inspection. It said it was pushing for updates on when the freeholder would commence the groundwork but it was unable to commence internal work until this took place. Its records referred to the kitchen and plaster work being booked but the dates were “distant and sporadic”. It needed a clear schedule of work with timescales. We appreciate that it would have been challenging for the landlord to complete the internal work while waiting for the freeholder to complete the groundwork. However, by July 2022, several months after the fire, its records suggest that it was still uncertain of the level of required work and timescales.
  11. On 2 August 2022 the resident chased for an update on the kitchen repairs and reported no running water in the property. The following day she notified the landlord that she was going to move back into the property the following week. It is not known whether this was an agreement reached with the landlord or the resident’s decision.
  12. The landlord contacted the resident on 4 August 2022 to discuss an appointment to replace the flooring. In her response she said there was no water in the property and its carpenter had not attended as arranged. She said that the landlord was discriminating against her and her daughter due to their disabilities. We have seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to her claims. However, while we recognise that its communication was poor, and the repairs were delayed, we have seen no evidence that its actions were discriminatory.
  13. The resident told the landlord that she was appointing her own painter on 5 August 2022. She said that its flooring contractor and painters would not be able to work alongside each other. Her own painter would complete the upper floor on the 8 August 2022 and its flooring contractor could then install the new flooring while its painters tackled the lower floors. She said she would send the receipt for reimbursement. The landlord appears to have agreed to reimbursing the costs.
  14. The same day the resident reported being called by a plumber to turn the water back on. She said it was the landlord’s policy not to allow anyone to enter the property, despite there being a key safe. She had to travel to meet the plumber at the property and that when the water was turned on it flooded the kitchen. She reported further on 9 August 2022 that its contractors were coming to paint but there was still no water and only electrics to the lights, the sockets did not work.
  15. The landlord’s records show that on 10 August 2022 it raised an order to complete an electrical test. However, the resident reported that the electrician was not doing the electrics and it required a full electrical test as soon as possible. This was due to moving back in on 19 August 2022 and her furniture being delivered. She asked for the electric to be reinstated by 12 August 2022. The resident should not have considered moving home with outstanding repairs, specifically electrics given the potential cause of the fire.
  16. The resident moved from her temporary accommodation back into the property on 8 September 2022. She chased the landlord for the reimbursement of the painting costs and said that the ground and first floor remained untouched. She added that a gas engineer attended and said that the boiler should have a polystyrene cover to insulate it as it was damaged during the fire. She asked for timescales and compensation. The landlord responded on 12 September 2022 apologising that “so many issues” were incomplete. It said it would chase the reimbursement and complete the work.
  17. On 15 September 2022 the landlord advised the resident it had checked its records and could confirm the replacement of the plasterboard in the kitchen and laundry cupboard which was booked for February 2023. It is not known why there was such a delay for an appointment to complete the work. It said it would speak to its planners to see if this could be brought forward. It said that the quote to replace the kitchen units had been approved and it would be in contact to arrange the work. It also confirmed that it had raised an order for the insulation cover.
  18. The resident chased the landlord on 15 October 2022 about the kitchen repairs. This was almost 2 months after it said it had approved the work. She said she needed a fully functioning kitchen by Christmas. She had also not received the £500 reimbursement. It responded on 28 October 2022 stating that it was no longer using that particular contractor for the kitchen work. It would visit on 1 November 2022 to check what work was required. This would likely have added further to the resident’s frustration given it had previously advised her that it had approved the work.
  19. The resident chased again on 5 December 2022 and added that the laundry cupboard was mouldy. This was next to her child’s bedroom who suffered from respiratory issues. The landlord responded stating the kitchen work had been authorised and its contractor would update on when it would start the work. It also confirmed that a specialist company would attend to complete a mould wash. She responded stating that the plasterboard needed to be removed and replaced rather than a mould wash.
  20. The landlord told the resident on 6 December 2022 that the kitchen work was subject to tender and it was due to receive quotes by 21 December 2022. This is again in contradiction to its previous response. The resident corrected the landlord stating that it had advised her it was no longer using that specific contractor and that tenders had been received on 21 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged its error and confirmed that the kitchen was scheduled to be replaced that week. This again demonstrates a communication failing.
  21. The evidence shows that the resident continued to chase the landlord in December 2022 and January 2023 for outstanding repairs. She said that her old washing machine was still in situ and needed to be removed, and it had not resolved the issue with the kitchen ceiling or damp in the laundry. She said it had been 10 months since the fire and there were still outstanding repairs. The landlord advised that it would visit on 19 January 2023 to inspect.
  22. The laundry cupboard and kitchen ceiling were replastered in February 2023 but the resident reported that the laundry cupboard door required replacing along with the skirting board. She also reported that the kitchen lights needed to be reinstated along with the fire alarm. She added that the hall, stairs and landing also needed redecorating. However, she confirmed on 16 March 2023 that her house was “complete” but she still needed it to resolve the doors and kitchen lights. She reported the kitchen lights again on 5 April 2023 and added that the insulation jacket had not been done. The resident raised further concerns about her internal doors on 29 September 2023 stating they were warped due to the water damage.
  23. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it acknowledged that the resident had spent significant time chasing for updates and responses to her queries. It noted there were a few occasions where her emails went unanswered and she had to raise her query again. It apologised and said it had passed this to its management team so better training could be conducted in the future. It was appropriate to apologise for the delays and acknowledge its failings. It also demonstrated some learning from the complaint.
  24. The landlord apologised that the resident received no response to an email she sent on 16 October 2023 regarding the boiler cover insulation. It confirmed that it raised a repair to replace the damaged boiler cover and an appointment was arranged for 7 March 2024. This was 19 months after she raised the issue in August 2022. It said that it had raised a job with its maintenance team about the fire doors. However, there was no available operatives to book a date and time. It said that once an operative became available it would contact her. It also said it had contacted its fire safety manager to contact her to get the sprinkler repaired or replaced as a matter of urgency. It offered £1,150 compensation.
  25. The landlord’s response was not appropriate given the fire took place in April 2022. It should have ensured that the doors and sprinkler system were rectified prior to the resident moving back into the property for safety reasons. It could also have considered outsourcing the work if it had no available resource.
  26. The landlord’s apology, compensation offer and offer to complete repairs could be said to put things right for the resident. However, the evidence shows that some repairs remained outstanding such as the sprinkler head in the laundry room where the fire originated, the boiler/tank insulation, and fire doors. This was not appropriate given the fire took place 20 months before and these items are all significant. Its compensation offer was not proportionate to the delays in completing repairs, time and trouble the resident spent chasing updates, and its communication failings.
  27. The landlord’s records of April 2024 referred to all doors being water damaged and no longer fire safe, yet later records referred to only 1 door requiring replacement. It is likely that the resident remained concerned about fire risk in her home. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have reassured her that the doors were safe if it decided not to replace them. Its records of 15 September 2024 again referred to the insulation cover being outstanding. The resident told us that the tank insulation is still outstanding, as is the sprinkler head in the laundry cupboard.
  28. For the above reasons we find that the landlord’s failings were again significant. Had the landlord not recognised the extent of its failings in its stage 2 response, we would have made a finding of severe maladministration. We have made an order for the landlord to pay to the resident the sum of £1,150 offered in its stage 2 response and an additional £250. We have also made an order for it to complete the outstanding repairs.

Move to temporary accommodation

  1. The landlord’s “decant” policy states that there will situations where it needs to directly rehouse an existing resident on an emergency or temporary basis. An emergency may be unplanned or unexpected which makes a residents home uninhabitable or unsafe. In these circumstances it may contact the local authority to assist in providing emergency accommodation. Alternatively, it will encourage residents to stay with family or friends or, if this is not possible, it may find hotel accommodation. It may also consider another of its own properties or other alternative temporary options.
  2. The landlord provided hotel accommodation to the resident on the day of the fire. It made payments to cover her food costs as the hotel had no cooking facilities. This was reasonable in the circumstances given the nature of the emergency and was in line with its policy. Its records of 28 April 2022 show that it extended the hotel stay while it was seeking a more suitable solution.
  3. The resident was unhappy with the temporary accommodation and complained to the landlord the same day. The evidence shows that the landlord tried to find alternative accommodation throughout May 2022. It was struggling to source alternatives as many hotels would not accommodate the resident’s 2 dogs and she wanted to remain local. It demonstrated that it was looking for a serviced apartment and was in contact with its private rented sector and 4 local boroughs. However, it was only able to source 2-bedroom properties. While we appreciate that the accommodation would not have been ideal for the resident and her family, the landlord’s efforts and actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that it was a difficult time for the resident and offered the support of its tenancy sustainment team. This demonstrates that it considered the resident’s assertion that she was struggling financially and mentally with the situation. It was reasonable for it to explain that as it was a serious incident, its fire and insurance teams had to investigate and ensure that her home was safe before she could return.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it empathised that the temporary accommodation was causing distress. It noted that she have moved to another hotel and it had made payments of £320 toward food costs. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 20 May 2022, stating that she was still in a hotel and the property she had been allocated was too small and had no furniture. She said her mental health was affected and she needed answers. She said she was registered disabled, as was her daughter, and she had been homeless for 4 weeks. While we appreciate this would be distressing for the resident and her family, the landlord demonstrated that it had tried to find more suitable temporary accommodation but was limited given the availability of larger properties at the time of the incident.
  7. The landlord’s records of 26 May 2022 show that it ordered furniture for the temporary apartment. There was a delay in receiving the furniture and the resident remained in the hotel until it arrived. It signposted the resident to other agencies and raised a welfare referral to its tenancy sustainment team. This was appropriate given the resident had stated the situation was affecting her mental health.
  8. While the resident was in temporary accommodation, she asked the landlord for a permanent move. The evidence shows that the landlord did not consider this at the time as it was working to make her home habitable. This was reasonable as her home would be suitable once repairs were complete. The evidence also shows that in June 2022 it arranged a storage unit to accommodate the resident’s belongings and furniture. The resident returned home after 4 months in temporary accommodation.
  9. The resident told us that she wanted compensation toward her rent arrears which she stated accrued from staying in temporary accommodation. We empathise that it would have been a difficult time for the resident and her family, however, she remained liable for the rent on her primary home. The landlord also demonstrated that it made payments of reasonable expenses and provided furniture and storage facilities.
  10. We appreciate that being displaced from her home would have been distressing. But the landlord demonstrated that it followed its policy, offered support, and covered reasonable expenses. We have, therefore, made a finding of no maladministration.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident raised her damp and mould complaint on 28 September 2021. The landlord responded 2 days later in line with its complaint policy timescale. However, while the landlord told us that she did not escalate her complaint, she expressed her dissatisfaction with its response on 5 separate occasions. It is not known why it responded again at stage 1 of its complaints process in November 2021. She told the landlord that she was seeking external help with the case and it still did not consider that an escalation was warranted. This was a failing and we have ordered redress.
  3. The resident raised her second complaint on 4 May 2022 and the landlord responded 16 working days later, 6 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 20 and 26 May 2022. Its records state that it advised her about its delays in responding to complaints and suggested that she move from the hotel into her temporary accommodation first. This was not appropriate and would likely have added to the resident’s frustration.
  4. The evidence shows that on 27 June and 12 September 2022 the landlord acknowledged that the stage 2 complaint response was pending. But it failed to provide its response until 16 January 2024, almost 14 months after she asked to escalate her complaint. It apologised for its delayed response and offered £300 compensation. It was appropriate that it apologised and offered redress for the failings at stage 2 of this second complaint. Its offer was proportionate to the significant delay experienced by the resident.
  5. Given the failings in the earlier complaint, we have made an order for compensation in the amount of £100. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Reports of required repairs following a fire.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £2,550 broken down as follows:
      1. £750 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience, for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. (£500 offered in June 2022 can be deducted if already paid).
      2. £1,400 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its communication and failings identified in relation to the repairs following a fire. (£1,150 offered in its stage 2 response can be deducted if already paid).
      3. £400 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling failures. (£300 offered in its stage 2 response can be deducted if already paid).
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    3. Contact the resident to confirm a list of outstanding repairs and timescales for when these will be completed. This should include the boiler/tank insulation, fire doors, and sprinkler system in the laundry room.
    4. Complete a full electrical safety test to the property and provide a copy of the report to the resident and us. Any identified repairs must be completed within promptly.
    5. Confirm to the resident what works the freeholder will undertake, if not already completed, and provide a timescale for any work.