London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202502269)

Background

1. The resident lives in a lower-ground floor flat owned by the landlord. She moved out of the property in February 2022 so it could carry out repairs to resolve reoccurring damp and mould. She complained that it had not completed the repairs for over 3 years and it did not provide her with temporary accommodation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
   2. The rehousing process for the resident during the repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
   2. The rehousing process for the resident during the repairs.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We have found that:

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the associated repairs

7. The landlord took a total of 3 years and 8 months to complete repairs to address the damp and mould. There were extended periods where there was no evidence that it was taking action to investigate the cause of the damp and mould or arrange repairs. It failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of repairs and left her living with friends and family during this timeframe. Its compensation offer was not proportionate to the delays she experienced.

The landlord’s handling of the rehousing process

8. The landlord did not maintain regular communication with the resident throughout the 3 years and 8 months she was not able to live at the property. The landlord did not offer her a permanent move in line with the timescales of its rehousing policy. When it did offer a permanent move in November 2023 it did not give her sufficient information about its process. In addition, when she told the landlord she was no longer able to stay with her family it did not provide temporary accommodation to her for approximately 9 months.

The landlord’s complaint handling

9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response and decided to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process the day after she submitted it, without discussing the complaint with her beforehand. This prevented her from requesting that it provide her with a further consideration of her complaint. It failed to demonstrate that it adequately investigated her complaint at either stage of its process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

10. Our scheme states we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, normally 12 months. The resident stated she had been reporting damp and mould since 2015but she did not raise a complaint until 12 February 2025. Our investigation has, therefore, focussed on the events after it temporarily moved her out of the property in February 2022.Any events prior to this are referred to for contextual purposes only.

What we have investigated

11. We saw from August 2017 onwards the landlord created multiple repair orders to address damp, mould and potential leaks into the property. On 2 March 2021 it requested a damp and mould inspection take place to provide recommendations on how to resolve issues. Later records state a report was produced on 29 September 2021 but we have not had sight of this.
12. The landlord temporarily moved the resident out of the property around 17 February 2022. We have not seen any evidence that it took further action to address the damp and mould for approximately 4 and a half months following the report on 29 September 2021. We have also not seen that it communicated with her about why it required her to move out for the planned repairs and when these would take place.
13. The landlord made a further repair order on 1 April 2022 to investigate the issues with damp and mould for the 2 lower-ground floor properties of the building. We have seen no explanation why it took over a month for it to request this. As such, this delay was unreasonable.
14. The landlord’s later records state another report was created on 20 October 2022, around 6 and a half months later. We have not seen a copy of this nor are there other records to show the landlord took any action to resolve the damp and mould during this period. The landlord greatly exceeded the timescales of its damp and mould policy which said it should assess the underlying cause of damp and mould within 20 working days.
15. We have seen no evidence the landlord took any further action to resolve the damp and mould until 7 March 2024, around 16 months later, when it received a report from an independent surveyor into the cause of the damp and mould. As such, it did not take action promptly to raise repairs or to arrange a further inspection following 20 October 2022.
16. The independent surveyor’s report dated 7 March 2024 observed that there were issues with damp and high moisture across all levels of the property as well as mould and fungal growth. They referred back to the recommendations from previous damp inspections on 29 September 2021 and 20 October 2022, stating these would primarily be “aesthetic solutions”. They concluded the cause of the damp likely related to the original construction in terms of the damp-proof membrane and damp-proof course being insufficiently lapped. They recommended further intrusive investigations were necessary.
17. The landlord has not provided further records to show when further investigations took place or how it handled the subsequent repairs. However, from the available information the resident was only told she could move back into the property from 15 October 2025, approximately 19 months from its latest damp investigation.
18. The landlord’s repair policy does not specify a target timescale for completing major works. We recognise the investigations and possible repairs indicated from the report on 7 March 2024 were extensive and may have taken some time. However, where there are delays in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in communicating to residents about the cause of delays, what it intends to do to minimise these and any mitigating action it will take. There is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about any of these issues or the progress of repairs which was unreasonable.
19. Overall, it took the landlord approximately 3 years and 8 months in total to complete the repairs to resolve the damp and mould after the resident moved out of the property. There were significant gaps where there is no evidence the landlord was taking action to progress the repairs. While it offered £700 compensation for its service failings in its stage 2 response in March 2025, this was not proportionate to the delays the resident experienced, including 2 and a half years living with family and friends. This offer also did not reflect the additional delays up until October 2025 that meant the resident remained in temporary accommodation for approximately 7 months after its stage 2 response. These were significant failures which likely had a detrimental impact on the resident.

What we have not investigated

20. The resident told us that her mental health deteriorated while she remained living with family and friends then temporary accommodation for over 3 years. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury or illness 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.

What we have investigated

21. The landlord moved the resident out of the property around 17 February 2022. At this time, it provided her with £250 a week for her to stay with family or friends. Its rehousing policy says it should explore if the option of residents staying with friends or family as temporary accommodation is acceptable for them before arranging to provide another of its properties. Though we have not seen evidence of any discussion with the resident about rehousing there is no indication it was not initially acceptable for her. As such, it acted in line with its policy.
22. The landlord’s rehousing policy says that if the planned works are so extensive residents could be displaced from their home for longer than 6 months, or if they have already been in temporary accommodation for 3 months and further work is needed, it should consider permanently rehousing them. We have seen no evidence that it gave any consideration to moving the resident permanently after 3 months in line with its policy. It was not until 29 November 2023, approximately 21 months after she had moved out that it made an offer to permanently rehouse her. It is reasonable to assume it had some discussion with her about permanently rehousing her before its offer but the timescale greatly exceeded those set out in its policy.
23. The landlord told us that the resident rejected its offer of permanent accommodation without viewing it. She disputed this and said the property it offered was not like-for-like. The evidence shows that she sent it an email on 30 November 2023 saying she would not accept the property due to issues with its size, the state of the communal garden and the front door not being secure. This indicates that she likely visited the property.
24. The landlord’s rehousing policy says it will inform a resident that if they refuse a suitable offer of permanent rehousing it will close the case and not make further offers. Its  also says a resident will have the option to appeal the closure of the rehousing process in writing if they consider the property offered was unsuitable. We have seen no evidence the landlord informed the resident it would only be making one offer of permanent accommodation or that she could appeal the closure of her case. Whilst we cannot take a view on what the outcome of any appeal may have been, it failed to follow its policy.
25. The landlord noted in its offer of 29 November 2023 the resident said she was no longer able to stay with her daughter after 4 December 2023 and would require it to provide temporary accommodation. She repeated in an email on 30 November 2023, after she refused the permanent offer, that she would still need it to provide temporary accommodation from 4 December 2023.
26. There is no evidence the landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident in December 2023 and it continued to provide payments of £250 a week for her to stay with family or friends. It did not provide her with temporary accommodation until 13 August 2024, 9 months later and there is no evidence of its communication with her during this time. She told us that during this period she had no long-term accommodation and was “sofa-surfing” between friends which caused her inconvenience and distress about whether she would have a stable living arrangement.
27. Though the landlord’s rehousing policy does not specify how quickly it should offer temporary accommodation it greatly exceeded what we would consider to be a reasonable timescale. If it did not have suitable available properties at the time of her request it should have considered a hotel or serviced apartments as outlined in its policy.
28. The resident remained in temporary accommodation for approximately 14 months between 13 August 2024 until 15 October 2025, when she moved back into the property. The landlord’s rehousing policy says it should remain in regular contact with residents in temporary accommodation to make sure that everything is okay with their accommodation. There is no evidence the landlord was in regular communication with her at any point between 17 February 2022 up until 15 October 2025 to check on her welfare.

29. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 February 2025. The landlord issued its stage 1 decision the following day. Its complaint policy says it will define the resident’s complaint with them before it issues its stage 1 decision, which is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). There is no evidence it contacted her to define her complaint as it should have in line with its policy.
30. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it would not be providing the resident with compensation “due to the timeline of events” yet simultaneously apologised and acknowledged that she experienced an “unacceptable” level of disruption. It gave no further reason for its decision or explanation of why its delays had occurred. As such it did not demonstrate that it adequately investigated the resident’s complaint at stage 1, address all the points she raised, or provide clear reasons for its decisions in line with the Code.
31. In addition, the landlord’s stage 1 response also told the resident it had escalated her complaint to stage 2. It issued a stage 2 acknowledgement to her on 14 February 2025. Again, there was no evidence it had discussed her complaint with her.
32. The landlord recorded discussing the complaint with the resident on 17 February 2025. It issued its stage 2 response on 27 March 2025. While this was 29 working days after its acknowledgement, exceeding the 20-working day timescale it wrote to her to explain it required an extension. The Code allows for an additional 20 working days so there is not a failing here.
33. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged there had been delays in its handling of the events complained about. However, it gave no explanation about why the repairs and temporary move had been ongoing for 3 years. This indicates either the landlord did not adequately investigate her complaint at stage 2 or that its records were insufficient to let it provide a clear explanation to address the points she had raised, as we would expect in line with the Code.

Learning

Complaint handling

34. The landlord needs to carry out an effective 2-stage complaint process that provides meaningful responses to residents’ complaints, which are compliant with the requirement of the Code. It is important for the landlord to issue its responses promptly in line with the Code. However, it must balance this with the Code’s requirements to investigate adequately, consider all relevant information and evidence carefully, and to then provide clear explanations and reasons for its decisions to the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. There was a lack of evidence for the time period this investigation covered, which was notable as the landlord provided repair records from several years prior to this period. The lack of adequate records affected our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as outlined throughout this report. Its failure to keep accurate records likely contributed to the other failures identified in this report. It should consider reviewing our ‘Spotlight report on knowledge and information management’ to consider what went wrong in this case and how it could improve. It is in the landlord’s best interests to maintain a robust audit trail of how it handles major repairs such as these so it can justify its actions, decisions and the time taken to resolve the situation.

Communication

36. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate. It should ensure it has suitable processes in place to keep residents who have been temporarily moved out of their home updated so it can address any issues with their temporary accommodation arrangements early on.