London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202406718)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406718

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

13 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:
1. Response to a leak and associated damp and mould.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property. He lives with his son.
The resident made a complaint on 2 January 2024. He said there was damp in the property and external rendering had not been done properly. The landlord responded at stage 1 and said it had asked for an update from the contractor. The resident escalated the complaint as he was dissatisfied with the response.
He made a further complaint in February 2024 about having to wait for a repair to a leak. The landlord responded at both complaints at stage 2 on 27 August 2024. It outlined findings of its surveyor and works to be completed. It offered compensation. The resident referred his complaint to us on 8 October 2024 as he felt the compensation was too low.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us that the damp and mould impacted the health of him and his son. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Response to a leak and associated damp and mould

The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 2 January 2024 and said as follows:
1. There was damp in every room.
2. External rendering had been carried out in 2022. He did not feel this had been done to a good enough standard. He would like this redone.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response the following day. It said it had asked its contractor for an update and would be in touch with the resident.
This response was brief and did not demonstrate that the landlord had investigated the concerns. We have considered the landlord’s complaint handling separately below.
The resident escalated his complaint that same day, 3 January 2024. He said:
1. There had been mould since 2021. The cause had not been investigated.
2. External rendering had not resolved the problem.
3. The mould only occurred during the cold months and the property was difficult to heat.
4. He was using three dehumidifiers.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord took any action in respect of the concerns raised at the time. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk (such as damp and mould), the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
We have not been provided with any evidence to show that the landlord carried out mould washes following the report from January 2024. Although the resident told us he had dehumidifiers, there is no evidence that the landlord considered supplying additional dehumidifiers. Both of these would have helped address the damp in the property pending a permanent fix. The landlord failed to carry out sufficient interim action despite being aware of the resident’s concerns about the impact on the health of the household.
The resident subsequently submitted another complaint on 28 February 2024. He said as follows:
1. He had raised a complaint on 2 January 2024 about leaks into the kitchen and bedroom. It would have been 10 weeks from his report before the landlord planned to attended to assess the problem.
2. There was mould growing in the kitchen.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2024 and said as follows:
1. He had asked for the matter to be escalated to stage 2.
2. He and his son had been living with damp and mould since March 2023.
3. He had to strip wall paper in the front room as there was mould behind it which he said was making the household ill.
4. A contractor had assessed a roof leak but it would not be repaired until August. The leak had caused mould in the kitchen.
5. He requested all works be completed, the damage repaired and to be provided with compensation.
A surveyor attended on 15 April 2024 and found as follows:
1. The living room had previously been turned into a bedroom with shower, which the resident wanted to be removed. The surveyor said this would not be done.
2. The resident had requested double glazed windows be renewed. The surveyor declined the need for the work on the basis the windows were “ok”.
3. Some of the walls experienced cold and damp. As such, they would discuss the possibility of installing thermal boarding.
4. They had agreed to the following work:
  1. Renew the bathroom extractor fan.
  2. Renew the bathroom cupboard top which had been affected by a leak.
  3. Renew casing around pipes in the bathroom cupboard.
  4. Seal the faulty canopy above the kitchen door.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will attend to assess the property within 20 working days of such a report to understand the scale of the problem. It will raised any works needed within 10 working days of this assessment.
We have seen that it took the landlord from the initial report of damp and mould on 2 January 2024, until 15 April 2024 for the property to be assessed. This was a period of 73 working days. This was significantly outside of its 20 working day response time as stated in its damp and mould policy.
We have seen evidence that the landlord explained the delay t was due to its surveyor being delayed to respond. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did not contact the surveyor to request a survey until 19 March 2024. This was 55 working days after the resident had raised his concerns. As such, the landlord’s reliance of the delay being caused by its surveyor was not an accurate reflection of the evidence.
Following the surveyor’s attendance, the evidence shows the landlord was not proactive and did not tell the resident what the surveyor had found. As such, the resident had to chase this information from the landlord. It was only following this that the landlord summarised the work it would do.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 29 May 2024 and said as follows:
1. He asked when the work would be done.
2. He said the surveyor had offered decorating vouchers for the mould damage. He asked if the landlord would decorate behind the toilet in the front room.
3. He asked if both bedrooms would be insulated.
4. He asked if the landlord would put right the damage caused by the leaking roof and faulty canopy.
5. He said he had not had an update about the rendering.
The resident chased a response to the complaint throughout July 2024. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 27 August 2024. It said as follows:
1. It reiterated the work identified by its surveyor.
2. It said it would install thermal boards. This was provisionally booked for 20 September 2024. If this took longer, it would reconsider its offer of compensation.
3. It offered a total of £160 compensation for the substantive issues. This was made up as follows:
  1. £80 distress.
  2. £80 inconvenience.
Our investigation has identified that the landlord’s stage 2 response was poor for the following reasons:
1. It did not address the resident’s concerns about the quality of the external rendering.
2. It did not clarify if both bedrooms would be insulated with thermal boards.
3. It did not address the resident’s concerns about damage caused by the leak.
4. It did not clarify if it would provide decorating vouchers, if it would carry out internal decoration or if this was the resident’s responsibility.
5. It did not address or acknowledge the health concerns raised by the resident.
We have seen evidence that following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, it took the landlord until 28 May 2025 to raise work for the thermal boarding and internal decoration. This was over a year after the works had been identified by its surveyor. Despite its promise to reconsider compensation if the work was delayed passed September 2024, we have not seen any evidence that it did so.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s offer of £160 compensation for the substantive matter was at the lower end of the range of compensation suggested by our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident. This compensation was not sufficient to acknowledge the cumulative effect of the failures on the resident or representative as to the extent of the landlord’s failings. In summary, the failures our investigation has found are as follows:
1. The landlord’s response times to investigate reports of damp and mould were delayed.
2. Its timeframe to carry out works to address the issues were delayed.
3. It failed to consider or carry out interim solutions to improve living conditions.
4. It failed to show consideration of the resident’s concerns about the household’s health.
5. It failed to proactively keep in contact with the resident.
6. It failed to reconsider its offer of compensation as it had promised in light of further delays.
When these additional failures are considered in conjunction with that which was identified by the landlord, the £160 compensation offered was not sufficient to reflect the totality of the effect on the resident. As such, the failures in this case, when taken together, alongside the landlord’s failure to provide appropriate redress for the impact of the failures, amounts to a determination of maladministration.
We have ordered an additional £340 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This brings the total compensation for the substantive matter to £500. This amount is within our range of compensation suggested by our remedies guidance where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that at stage 1 of its complaints process it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will subsequently respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If additional time is needed at either stage, it will keep the resident informed.
The resident submitted his initial complaint to the landlord on 2 January 2024 about the damp and rendering works. The landlord provided a stage 1 response the following day. It said it had asked for an update from the contractor and would be back in touch with the resident.
Our complaint handling code (the Code) says that a stage 1 response is an opportunity for a landlord to investigate the issues raised. The landlord’s stage 1 response showed no evidence that it had investigated the matters.
Given the lack of a substantive response, the resident escalated his complaint the same day, 3 January 2024. The landlord failed to respond and so the resident chased this on 7 February 2024. The landlord told him he could only escalate the issue once it had responded at stage 1. It is clear that the landlord’s record keeping in respect of the progress of the complaint was poor. It failed to recognise that it had already responded at stage 1.
The resident submitted another complaint on 28 February 2024. This was about ongoing mould and a leak.
As he had had no further response, on 4 April 2024, the resident reiterated his request to escalate his first complaint. The landlord again incorrectly told him that he needed to wait for a stage 1 response.
The resident chased a response on 4 July 2024 and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 for a third time. The landlord made internal enquires about the status of the complaint. A member of its staff noted internally that they had forgotten to send a formal stage 1 response to the initial complaint. It is not clear what action the landlord took if any in respect of putting things right for the resident in light of this. The resident chased a response again on 31 July 2024.
The landlord responded to both of the complaints at stage 2 on 27 August 2024. It stated that it had not identified any failure with the stage 1 response. However, it said the resident had escalated the complaint on 17 January2024 but it had failed to pick this up. It offered £160 compensation for complaint handling failures.
Our investigation and consideration of the stage 2 response has identified the following:
1. The landlord did not identify any failures with its stage 1 response despite there being no effective investigation carried out at that stage.
2. The landlord failed to identify that the resident had escalated the complaint on 3 January 2024.
3. It did not acknowledge that it had repeatedly told the resident that it had not responded at stage 1, despite having done so.
4. Due to a lack of proactive communication, the resident had to chased the response on at least 4 occasions between January and August 2024.
5. It took the landlord from 3 January to 27 August 2024 to respond at stage 2. This was a period of 166 working days, over 7 months. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s stage 2 20 working day response timeframe.
Although the landlord’s offer of compensation went some way to acknowledge the effect of its failures, it was not enough to fully acknowledge what went wrong. When taken together with the additional failures we have identified, this amounts to maladministration.
To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, we have ordered an additional £190 compensation. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £250. This is within our range of compensation suggested by our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak and associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
1. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
2. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.
The landlord should take the following action by 11 November 2025. It should provide evidence of compliance with these actions to us:
1. The landlord must pay the resident £750, made up as follows:
  1. £500 to acknowledge to effect on the resident of the landlord’s response to a leak and associated damp and mould.
  2. £250 to acknowledge to effect on the resident of the complaint handling failures.
2. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.
The landlord must confirm if the following works have been completed and if so confirm the date of completion:
1. Renewal of the bathroom extractor fan.
2. Renewal of the bathroom cupboard top which had been affected by a leak.
3. Renewal of casing around pipes in the bathroom cupboard.
4. Sealing the faulty canopy above the kitchen door.
5. Installation of thermal boarding in the bedroom.
If any of these works have not been completed the landlord must take all steps to ensure the work is completed promptly and in any event by 11 November 2025. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by 11 November 2025:
1. Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or
2. Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.