Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202503275)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202503275

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

26 September 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 reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 7 January 2025 the resident reported damp and mould in their property. The landlord assessed the property on 25 January 2025 to determine the required remedial actions.
  3. On 31 January 2025 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. They were unhappy about the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 February 2025. It apologised for the ongoing issues. It confirmed it had booked appointments for it to attend to carry out remedial works.
  5. On 25 March 2025 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. They remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reported damp and mould.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 24 April 2025. It accepted there had been delays in it completing remedial works. It confirmed it had completed the works recommended by its damp and mould inspection. It apologised for the impact of the damp and mound on the resident and their family. It offered £250 compensation.
  7. On the same day (24 April 2025) the resident escalated their complaint to us. They said they did not recall the landlord carrying out a damp and mould inspection.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. When escalating their complaint to us the resident said they were unhappy the landlord would not check their property’s wall insulation. The resident requested this check during the landlord’s investigation of their complaint. However, neither the resident nor the landlord have provided us with any evidence the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord not doing the check. There is also no evidence the landlord investigated this matter as part of its complaints process.
  2. Our Scheme states we may not consider matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. Because of this, any complaint the resident has about the landlord’s handling of their request to check the wall insulation would need to be raised as a new complaint to the landlord. Following the landlord’s investigation and final response, if the resident is still dissatisfied, they could escalate these matters to us.
  3. This investigation will only consider the matters the landlord investigated and responded to in its stage 1 response of 11 February 2025 and final response of 24 April 2025.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s records show on 7 January 2025 it raised a work order for a damp and mould assessment of the resident’s property. We have not been provided with any evidence which suggests any delay in the landlord raising this order.
  2. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 25 January 2025. This was in line with its damp and mould policy. The policy states the landlord will carry out a property assessment within 20 working days of receiving a report of damp and mould.
  3. The landlord’s assessment identified a possible issue with the loft insulation being missing, compromised, or poorly fitted. It recommended further investigations were carried out. The assessment also recommended the landlord replace the resident’s bathroom extractor fan.
  4. On 31 January 2025 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. They said a company had called them to arrange a mould wash. They thought this was pointless before the landlord had resolved the cause of the damp and mould. They called the landlord for an update on the identified remedial works. The landlord told them there was a month backlog for roofing works. It also told them the fan replacement was only a recommendation.
  5. On 6 February 2025 the landlord raised a work order to carry out further investigations of the loft insulation. This was in line with its damp and mould policy. The policy states it will raise work orders for any required works within 10 working days of its damp and mould assessment.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 February 2025. It apologised for the distress caused by the ongoing damp and mould issues. It had scheduled a roofing operative to attend the resident’s property on 5 March 2025. It said it was committed to resolving the underlying cause of the damp and mould.
  7. The landlord’s repair policy states it would aim to complete repairs within 25 calendar days. From the date the landlord identified it needed to further investigation the loft insulation (25 January 2025) to the scheduled date for the roofing operative (5 March 2025) was 39 days. This was not in line with its repair policy timescales.
  8. The landlord would have been aware, at the time of its stage 1 response, it was not acting in line with its policy timescales by scheduling the appointment as it did. It could have improved its customer service by acknowledging this in its response and providing an explanation for the delay.
  9. On 19 February 2025 the landlord raised a work order to replace the resident’s bathroom extractor fan. This order was raised 17 working days after its damp and mould assessment. This was not in line with its policy timescales. The landlord’s records show it replaced the extractor fan on 25 February 2025.
  10. On 5 March 2025 the landlord told the resident its roofing operative was unwell and it needed to reschedule the appointment. It had booked the new appointment for 9 June 2025 but said it would try to move this to an earlier date. The resident told the landlord they were not happy about the additional delay. They were concerned the delay in identifying the cause of the damp and mould would lead to an even longer delay in the issue being resolved.
  11. The landlord re-raised the work order with a different roofing contractor on 13 March 2025. The new contractor was booked to attend the resident’s property on 26 March 2025.
  12. On 25 March 2025 the resident made a further complaint using the landlord’s complaint form. This complaint repeated that the property had damp on the inside of all the exterior walls.
  13. The landlord’s roofing contractor attended the resident’s property on 26 March 2025. The contractor identified the loft insulation was missing from the edges of the loft (under the eaves) which would cause cold bridging. Cold bridging is when a breach in a building’s insulation allows heat to more easily transfer out of the internal spaces. It can lead to condensation forming on interior surfaces in and around the affected areas.
  14. On 27 March 2025 the landlord agreed with the resident that the complaint form submitted on 25 March 2025 would be treated as an escalation request for the ongoing complaint.
  15. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 8 April 2025 to remedy the missing loft insulation. The completion report provided by its contractor notes the existing insulation was repositioned and additional insulation added. It laid new insulation in the eaves, ensuring it was positioned correctly and to the appropriate depth. The completion report included photographs of the completed works.
  16. The landlord issued its final response on 24 April 2025. It acknowledged there were delays in it completing the required works in the resident’s property. It explained the actions it took to investigate and resolve the reported damp and mould issues. It confirmed its roofing contractor identified cold bridging in the loft. It said it resolved this by adding additional loft insulation. It also confirmed it replaced the bathroom extractor fan.
  17. It offered £250 compensation. This comprised £200 for distress and £50 for the resident’s “time and effort getting the complaint resolved”. It said its damp and mould team had not received a response to attempts to book an appointment to treat the mould. It asked the resident to contact them to agree a suitable appointment.
  18. In conclusion, the landlord took appropriate actions in line with its damp and mould policy to identify the cause of damp and mould in the resident’s property. Having identified the likely causes it completed the recommended repairs to address these. It acknowledged and apologised it had failed to complete all the repairs within its policy timescales.
  19. When a failure is 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 the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  20. The landlord made an offer of compensation which, when assessed using our remedies guidance, would be awarded where failures have occurred and these have adversely affected the resident. As such, we assess the landlord’s offer of compensation to be proportionate to its failings and it satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
  21. For these reasons, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £250 compensation offered in its final complaint response if it has not already done so.