London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202332554)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332554

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

2 October 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 leaks, damp and mould and remedial repairs.
2. reports about the condition of the windows.
3. complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor of a 2-storey building. The building dates from 1890 and is in a conservation area. The resident has told us he suffers from osteoarthritis and anxiety. The landlord has not provided a record of any vulnerabilities.
The evidence provided indicates that the resident reported a leak in his roof and damp in his property on or around 22 March 2023. The landlord and resident exchanged emails the same day. The resident confirmed it was a different leak to the one that the landlord had previously repaired but said it was coming from the same place. He also reported that his windows were rotting and required replacement. He said damp was causing wallpaper to come off the walls in the bedroom. The resident asked the landlord to send somebody to assess the property and make recommendations.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 April 2023. It said it had arranged for a contractor to attend to assess the damp and mould. The resident responded the following day. He said did not need this and the landlord needed to repair the leaking roof. The landlord’s records show it raised jobs to repair the roof on 21 April 2023 and 2 June 2023. It raised a job to repair the window sash on 12 June 2023.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord in August and September 2023 chasing the repairs to his roof and reporting missed appointments. He said the damp was getting worse. Between August and December 2023, the landlord raised further jobs to repair the resident’s roof, erect scaffolding and for the windows in the property. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 December 2023. He reported that rainwater had started to drip through the light fitting in his living room. The landlord completed work to make this safe on 12 December 2023.
The resident submitted a complaint on 15 January 2024. He said:
1. the landlord had raised repairs for the roof on 21 April 2023 and completed some repairs at the end of October 2023. However, water was still entering his flat.
2. a surveyor had attended, and the landlord had provided an appointment for 16 February 2024. However, this was 10 months after he reported the repair.
3. he wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 January 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. a job to repair the roof was outstanding.
2. regarding the windows, as the property was in a conservation area it would have to refer the street for a stock condition survey.
3. it would provide an update on those 2 issues by 30 January 2024.
4. it was sorry for the trouble caused. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing repairs it offered £440 compensation as a goodwill gesture as follows:
  1. distress: £120
  2. inconvenience: £120
  3. time and effort: £50
  4. service failure: £150
The landlord called the resident on 16 January 2024. He said he could only open the windows a little bit and would be unable to escape through them in the event of fire. He said this was a health and safety risk. The resident said he would accept the compensation although he felt it should be higher as he had to replace his personal belongings due to damp and mould. The landlord credited to the resident’s rent account on 18 January 2024. The landlord raised further jobs to repair the resident’s roof and repoint the gable end at the end of January 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 January 2024. He said he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. He reiterated his concerns about the length of time taken to repair the roof and the condition of his windows. The landlord raised further repairs for the resident’s roof in February 2024. Between February and April 2024, the resident sent several emails to the landlord chasing the outstanding repairs and reporting missed appointments.
On 23 April 2024 we asked the landlord to provide a complaint response to the resident within 5 working days, by 1 May 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 May 2024. It said:
1. it completed the roofing job on 19 April 2024. However, it had raised a new job for loose pointing on the rear wall above the bedroom window which was allowing water ingress. It could not provide a clear update, but it would monitor this.
2. it upheld the resident’s complaint as there had been a significant delay in resolving those issues. It apologised for this, and any inconvenience caused. It was awarding compensation as follows:
  1. time and effort: £50.
  2. complaint handling, delay in providing the stage 2 response: £40.
  3. inconvenience: £40
The resident referred his complaint to us on 8 May 2024. He said that he had found the whole situation very stressful and he wanted the landlord to complete the repairs. He continued to email the landlord to chase the repairs for the leak. The landlord’s records show that its contractor completed this on 26 September 2024. The resident has since told us that he wanted additional compensation as he needed to redecorate because of the leak. He also said that the issues with the windows remained outstanding. He reiterated his concerns about health and safety in the event of a fire.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

As part of his complaint the resident has raised that the issues have impacted his health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where we have identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and remedial repairs

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property including the roof, walls and windows. It will also keep in repair internal walls and ceilings.
The landlord’s repairs policy supports this. It also states that:
1. where age and wear and tear affect windows, it would only replace these through planned programmes of work.
2. it would only redecorate following a repair where it had an obligation or in exceptional circumstances entirely at its discretion. It would make good any surfaces affected by the repair ready for residents to redecorate.
3. it would attend emergency repairs where there was an immediate danger to the resident within 24 hours. It would attend out of hours emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe and lower the immediate risk.
4. it aimed to complete routine day to day repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that:
1. following a report of damp and mould it would establish if it needed to make an immediate repair and act in accordance with its repairs policy.
2. it would agree a mutually convenient time within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem.
3. it may require multiple fixes; therefore, it would be clear with residents on timescales and keep them informed throughout.
The landlord’s damp and mould action plan states that on reports of damp and mould residents would receive a healthy homes assessment to identify any required repairs. They would also receive a clean and shield treatment to remove damp and mould. It would then monitor this for 12 months.
The evidence shows the landlord was aware of a new leak and damp in the resident’s property on 22 March 2023. The landlord told the resident on 3 April 2023 about a contractor attending regarding the damp and mould. This was in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy and action plan and was appropriate.
The landlord’s records from 21 April 2023 show that it had raised a repair for loose pointing allowing water ingress at the rear of the property. Due to the scale of the work and resources required, it would be unreasonable to consider the works to repair the leak as a routine repair for the landlord to complete within its aim of an average of 25-calendar days. However, it took the landlord over 18 months to complete this repair. This was unreasonable.
During this period resident contacted the landlord on several occasions including August and September 2023. He chased the repair and outstanding actions by the landlord including erecting scaffolding. He reported that the damp and mould was getting worse and the smell in the bedroom was so bad he was sleeping on mattress in the front room. From the documentary evidence provided it appears that the landlord did not keep the resident updated. This was inappropriate when measured against its repairs policy.
On 6 October 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it would erect scaffolding on 16 October 2023. This was over 6 months since the resident has reported the leak. This delay was unreasonable. The landlord apologised for the delay. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain this.
The landlord raised a repair for the roof on 31 October 2023. Its records show that rain had leaked through it and left damp patches in the living room. It would be unreasonable to consider this a routine repair for the landlord to complete within its 25-calendar day aim. However, the landlord took over 5 months to complete this repair. This was unreasonable.
The resident told the landlord on 10 December 2023 that rainwater had started to drip through the light fitting in his living room ceiling. He said this was a health and safety issue and he was very concerned. The landlord completed a job to make the light safe on 12 December 2023. This was appropriate because the resident reported this issue by email over a weekend and the landlord only became aware of this on 11 December 2023. Therefore, it acted within the timescales stipulated in its repairs policy for an emergency repair.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 January 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint about the length of time taken to repair the leaks. It said a job for this was outstanding and it would provide an update by 30 January 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide information on when it would attend to the repairs for the leaks in this response.
On the same day the resident raised concerns about the amount of compensation awarded. He said he had to replace personal belongings due to damp and mould. The landlord subsequently told the resident it had contacted the surveyor for an update on the roof. It also provided information on how to claim on its insurance for the damage to his resident’s belongings. This was reasonable because the landlord’s compensation policy does not cover damage to personal belongings.
The insurer can decide on whether the landlord had acted negligently and, if appropriate, the amount that should be paid to the resident. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to manage the cost of such claims as the landlord was not obliged to consider a claim outside the insurance process.
The landlord erected scaffolding for the repair at the front of the property on 18 January 2024, some 2 and a half months after it had raised a repair for this. This delay was not reasonable
Its contractor booked the roof repair for 23 January 2024. However, they were unable to complete the repair as there was a conservation order on the building, and they had to re-attend to install iron plating. The landlord was aware the building was in a conservation area. Therefore, it should have been aware of the materials permitted to repair the roof due to this. This caused a further delay and was unreasonable. Further, the landlord did not update the resident by 30 January 2024 on the repairs as stated in its stage 1 response. This was unreasonable.
The landlord raised a job to renew a lead gulley on 13 February 2024. However, it cancelled the quote for this on 15 February 2024 as it was hoping the conservation area would allow it to use felt. It did not keep the resident updated. This was inappropriate when measured against its damp and mould policy.
The resident reported that the landlord’s contractor had missed appointments on 21 February, 7 March and 2 and 8 April 2024. The landlord awarded a total of £60 for the missed appointments. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it would pay £20 for each missed appointment. Therefore, the compensation awarded does not reflect every missed appointment.
The resident told the landlord on 12 April 2024 that its contractor had completed the work at the front of the building the previous day. He said that he thought the contractor was going to complete the repair at the rear of the building as well, but it knew nothing about this. The landlord’s records show that “confusion with its contractor” led to it not completing this work. This was unreasonable. The landlord emailed the resident on 18 April 2024. It told him that it had raised another job for this.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 May 2024. It upheld his complaint about the roofing repairs. It said that it completed work on 19 April 2024. However, it has not provided a record of it completing work on this date. The landlord has also failed to provide adequate records of operatives attending the property and action taken to complete repairs throughout the resident’s complaint. This led to it incorrectly closing jobs as it thought it had completed them which caused further delays. That is a failing.
Additionally, in this response the landlord said it had raised a new job for the rear of the property but could not provide an update on this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide information such as an appointment date in this response.
The landlord’s records show that a different contractor completed the repair at the rear of the building on 26 September 2024. However, there is no evidence that the landlord has assessed the damage to the inside of the property following it completing repairs for the leaks. This includes considering if it would redecorate on the resident’s behalf or reinstate electricity to the light in the living room. The resident has told us that he had cleaned the mould himself, but water marks remained. This is inappropriate when measured against the landlord’s repairs policy.
There were significant delays in the landlord completing repairs to the leaks in the resident’s property. During which time the resident reported that the damp and mould was getting worse. The landlord did not keep the resident updated. Several appointments were cancelled without notice and the landlord’s record keeping failures contributed to the delays. The landlord has not assessed the damage to the inside of the property following the leaks. We have therefore found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and remedial repairs.
The landlord acknowledged some of its failings in its stage 1 response and upheld the resident’s complaint. It awarded £440 compensation for this, issues with the resident’s windows and an unrelated issue. However, it did not break this amount down. Based on the evidence provided it is reasonable to conclude that it attributed a third of this to the issues with its handling of the repairs to the leaks. Therefore, the landlord awarded £146.67. It credited this to the resident’s rent account on 18 January 2024. The landlord has also sent £60 in e-vouchers to the resident for missed appointments.
Additionally, in its stage 2 response the landlord awarded a further £90 compensation for the issues in repairing the roof and an unrelated repair. The landlord did not breakdown this amount. However, based on the evidence provided it is reasonable to conclude that it attributed half of this to the issues with its handling of the repairs to the leaks. This amounts to £45. Therefore, the landlord has awarded a total of £251.67 compensation. Although it is unclear if it has paid the compensation from the stage 2 response.
This does not adequately reflect the impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident. He expressed the distress and upset this was causing him in his correspondence with the landlord. He told the landlord and us that he was unable to sleep in the bedroom due to the damp from the leak. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident additional compensation to recognise how its failures impacted him. There was a significant loss of enjoyment to the resident in his home due to the leak going into the bedroom and resulting damage.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for a partial deduction in rent if a resident is unable to use a room because of a repair issue that is the landlord’s responsibility. As such, we have applied a 10% amenity loss calculation. It is reasonable for us to consider 22 March 2023 as the first report of the leak and the landlord’s records show it repaired this on 26 September 2024. A total of approximately 18 months or 79 weeks.
The rent statement provided by the landlord shows that the weekly rent for the property was £90.29 on 1 January 2024 which increased to £97.24 from 1 April 2024. To achieve the amenity loss calculation, we have considered the weekly rent for the property from 22 March 2023 as £90.29 and the weekly rent for the property from 27 March 2023 as £97.24. While we recognise that this is not the precise weekly average across the account years, it is a reasonable sum for us to use in the circumstances. Therefore, we have calculated the loss of amenity as follows:
1. 10% of the £90.29 weekly rent multiplied by 53 weeks between 22 March 2023 and 27 March 2024 = £478.53.
2. 10% of the £97.24 weekly rent multiplied by 26 weeks between 27 March 2024 and 25 September 2024 = £252.82
3. total amount = £731.35
The landlord should also pay the resident £300 for the delays in repairing the leak into his living room at the front of the building. Additionally, it should pay a further £300 as it has not assessed the damage from the leaks to the inside of the resident’s property. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident a total of £1,331.35 compensation.
The landlord has awarded a total of £251.67 compensation. This consists of £146.67 in the stage 1 response, £60 in e-vouchers and £45 from the stage 2 response. It credited the £146.67 to the resident’s rent account on 18 January 2024 and has sent the e-vouchers to the resident. However, it is unclear if it has paid the £45 from the stage 2 response.
The landlord can therefore deduct this from the £1,331.35 we have awarded meaning it should pay the resident an additional £1,079.68 compensation. It should also pay the £45 awarded in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and remedial repairs.
As the landlord has not assessed the damage to the inside of the property, we have made an order for it to inspect this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows

The resident reported that his windows were rotting and required replacement in his email of 22 March 2023. Replacing the windows could not reasonably be considered a routine repair for the landlord to complete within its aim of 25 calendar days. However, the landlord did not raise a job to repair the windows until 12 June 2023. Its records show it had received a healthy homes report showing that some windows did not open and others had gaps in which allowed heat to escape and created cold spots. The delay in raising this job was inappropriate when measured against its repairs policy.
The resident reiterated his concerns about the condition of the windows in his email of 8 August 2023. He said he could not open them due to the broken sash cords. He said contractors had recommended that the landlord replaced them and queried if this had happened. He requested that a surveyor attended and assessed the windows. The landlord did not respond to this email. This was unreasonable.
The landlord raised a job to inspect the window frames in the resident’s living room on 27 September. It noted that they were in a bad state of repair, difficult to open and close and the resident felt they were beyond repair. It referred this to a contractor on 24 October 2023. The landlord emailed the resident and informed him of this on 7 November 2023. However, it marked this job as “complete no action” on 18 November 2023. That was inappropriate given the repair was outstanding.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 January 2024. It said it had advised the resident on 24 November 2023 that as his property was in a conservation area it would have to refer his street for a stock condition survey. It said it would provide an update on this by 30 January 2024. The landlord has not provided any evidence of it contacting the resident on 24 November 2023.
Each case requires an independent view of the resident’s and property’s needs. It is good practice for landlords to schedule major works such as window replacements in advance and to have a programme of such works so that it could renovate multiple properties at the same time. However, it would be reasonable for landlords to carry out window replacements outside such major works programmes if it is necessary to do so based on the condition of that particular property. Furthermore, the landlord should have taken action when the repairs were reported to ensure that the windows were kept in a reasonable state of repair whilst awaiting a decision on whether a wider window replacement programme was needed.
There is also no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about fire safety in relation to the windows or undertook repairs to resolve the problem that they would not open properly. This was inappropriate. It left the resident with potentially unsafe windows and windows with gaps which caused cold spots in his property. The landlord’s records show that a healthy homes report had made it aware of this. This was unreasonable.
We have therefore found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of his windows.
There is no evidence that the landlord has taken any action to replace or repair the resident’s windows. The resident has confirmed this. The resident first reported the condition of his windows in March 2023. The landlord’s records show that it was aware the windows had gaps in them and were creating cold spots in June 2023. The resident raised fire safety concerns in January 2024. The landlord is yet to address these. With consideration of our guidance on outcomes there have been serious failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of his windows. That it did not address his concerns about fire safety is of particular concern.
The resident demonstrated the distress and upset the landlord’s handling of his reports about the condition of his windows caused in his correspondence with it. The landlord offered £440 compensation in its stage 1 response. This included the issues with the condition of the resident’s windows, the issues with the leaks in his roof and an unrelated complaint. The landlord did not break this down. However, based on the evidence provided we have divided this by 3. Therefore, we have attributed £146.67 to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of his windows.
Our remedies guidance allows for compensation payments of over £1,000 when we have found severe maladministration. Having carefully considered this a fair level of compensation would be £1,100 including the £146.67 already paid by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £953.33. This appropriately recognises the distress and upset caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of his windows.
As the issues with the windows remain outstanding. Orders have been made for the landlord to arrange an inspection of these and address the resident’s concerns including fire safety.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Code. Its states that:
1. a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made.
2. it will log and acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days at stage 1. It will then provide a written decision within 10 working days of logging the complaint.
3. it will provide its response at stage 2 within 20 working days of the request to escalate the complaint.
The resident was showing dissatisfaction in his emails from 22 March 2023. The landlord did not raise a complaint. This was inappropriate when measured against its complaints policy. The resident submitted a complaint on 15 January 2024. The landlord responded with its stage 1 response the following day. This was appropriate.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 January 2024. He continued to show his dissatisfaction. The landlord did not escalate his complaint. This was inappropriate when measured against its complaint policy. In his email of 30 January 2024, the resident said he was “dissatisfied” with the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord did not escalate his complaint. This was inappropriate.
The resident continued to show dissatisfaction in his emails to the resident. We asked the landlord to provide a complaint response by 1 May 2024 on 23 April 2024. The Code sets out that landlord should be able to identify and respond to complaints without our intervention. Therefore, this was inappropriate.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 May 2024. It offered £40 compensation for its delay in providing this. However, it did not address the resident’s complaint about the condition of his windows in this. The landlord had included this in its stage 1 response and the resident had raised it since including in his escalation request on 30 January 2024. The Code sets out that landlords must address all points raised. Therefore, this was inappropriate, especially as the resident had raised concerns about fire safety.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged some failings in its complaints handling in its stage 2 response. However, it did not address the resident’s complaint about his windows or acknowledge all its failings. Additionally, the £40 compensation offered does not adequately reflect the distress and upset caused by its complaint handling. The landlord delayed in raising the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and delayed in escalating the complaint to stage 2. This delayed the resident seeking redress through us. It did not offer a final resolution for his complaint about the condition of his windows.
Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Having carefully considered our remedies guidance we have ordered the landlord to pay £160, in addition to the £40 offered at stage 2, for a total of £200. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and remedial repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of his windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident from a senior director for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident the £85 offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so. This consists of £45 we attributed to the issues with the leaks and the £40 offered for complaint handling.
3. pay the resident £2,193.01 additional compensation, which it must not offset against any arrears, made up as follows:
  1. £1,079.68 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and remedial repairs.
  2. £953.33 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of his windows.
  3. £160 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
4. arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect for damage to the inside of the resident’s property caused by the leak and damp and mould. The surveyor must provide a written report to the landlord and resident (copied to us) which must:
  1. address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould and other damage to the inside of the property including whether it will redecorate and reinstate electricity to the light in the living room.
  2. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales, including dates to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding.
5. arrange an inspection of the resident’s windows by a suitably qualified surveyor. The surveyor must provide a written report to the landlord and resident (copied to us) which must:
  1. address the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
  2. address if it will replace the windows separately from any validation schedules or stock condition surveys. If it will not do this the report must outline the reasons to the resident including the dates of any planned programmes of work.
  3. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales, including dates to complete any repairs in the interim.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us within 28 days of the date of this report.