London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202335927)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202335927 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London & Quadrant Housing Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
13 October 2025 |
Background
1. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord from at least January 2022 and issues with the extractor fan from January 2023. She raised a formal complaint on 30 January 2023 about the time it took the landlord to resolve the issues. The correspondence between the parties suggests the property is overcrowded and contributing to the damp and mould in the bathroom and bedrooms.
What the complaint is about
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- Repairs to an extractor fan.
- Damp and mould in the property.
- The resident’s complaint.
Our decision (determination)
3. We found:
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of extractor fan repairs.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
- Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
4. The landlord did not book repair appointments in keeping with its repairs policy timescales. This caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience.
5. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in keeping with its complaint policy. Its combined offer of compensation was not proportionate to the cumulative impact its poor complaint handling caused the resident.
6. The landlord did not complete an assessment of whether the property was statutory overcrowded or fully considered rehousing options.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order
The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures found in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 10 November 2025 |
|
2 |
Compensation order
The landlord must pay the resident £1,160 made up as follows:
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 the £690 it offered in its stage 2 responses from the total figure if it has already paid this.
|
No later than 10 November 2025 |
|
3 |
Rehousing and options
The landlord must discuss the resident’s rehousing options with them and assess them based on overcrowding – as it appears this is having an impact on the damp and mould.
|
No later than 10 November 2025 |
|
4 |
Inspection order
The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.
What the inspection must achieve
The landlord must ensure the surveyor inspects the extractor fan, damp, and mould in the property and produces a written report with photographs.
The survey report must set out:
|
No later than 10 November 2025 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
30 January 2023 |
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said a faulty extractor fan caused mould and she wanted an earlier appointment than 14 April 2023. The landlord replied to the complaint the same day. It said it could not offer an earlier appointment, but it would try to bring it forward. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day as she was not satisfied with its response and wanted an earlier appointment. |
|
31 January 2023 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint. |
|
9 August 2023 |
The landlord sent a stage 2 response. It apologised for its complaint handling delay. It also said it was sorry it did not repair the extractor fan until May 2023 which caused black mould to spread in the property. It offered the resident £340 for any distress, inconvenience, time and effort its repair handling failings caused and £110 for delays in its complaint handling. |
|
6 October 2023 |
The resident sent a new stage 1 complaint. She said her extractor fan had stopped working again. She was unhappy the appointment was not until November 2023. She said last time she waited for a repair mould appeared in the bathroom. She said the landlord compensated her for this but she did not want the same thing to happen again. |
|
17 October 2023 |
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It explained its repair target timescales and said its computerised appointment system automatically selected the next available appointment. It said it did not have an appointment until 21 November 2023 but it would bring the appointment forward if there was a cancellation. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She wanted to know what changes it would make to stop her being in the same situation if her extractor fan cut off again. She said electricians had not found the cause of the fault before and she had to wait 6 weeks for another appointment. |
|
24 October 2023 |
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. |
|
22 January 2024 |
The landlord sent its final response. It acknowledged the extractor fan broke for a third time and opening windows was likely to cause distress and inconvenience during cold winter months. It rearranged an appointment from 4 March 2024 to 1 February 2024 due to mould in the bathroom. It said there needed to be 3 months between mould treatments. It said its surveyor found overcrowding was a cause of the mould and he recommended installing a second fan in the bedroom and window repairs. It advised her about mutual exchange and offered £240 compensation. It explained this was £120 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its repairs handling, and £120 for any time, and effort caused by the delays in its complaint handling. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said to put matters right the landlord should repair the causes of damp and mould in the property and repair the extractor fan so it comes on automatically. |
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.
|
Complaint |
Extractor fan repairs |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
7. The resident told us this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. 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 under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
What we did investigate
8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete bathroom extractor fan repairs within 7 working days. It repaired the resident’s fan within this target in January 2023. However, the resident reported further faults within a week of the repair.
9. The landlord tried to repair the bathroom extractor fan 3 more times between January 2023 and February 2024. On each occasion the resident waited significantly longer than the repair target.
10. The landlord told the resident it used an automated repair booking system and it did not have any earlier appointment dates. On each occasion it said it would rearrange the appointment if it had a cancellation. The landlord’s automated booking system did not keep to its repair policy timescales. However, it was positive the landlord offered to rearrange the appointment if it could.
11. In both its final complaint responses the landlord offered a combined total of £460 (£340 and £120) for its repair handling failings. The landlord did not clearly itemise the compensation in its January 2024 response so we have considered it all for the extractor fan repair failings. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation to put right its recognised failings in line with its compensation policy. Its award was not proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience its extractor fan repairs caused the resident. We have ordered additional compensation.
12. At the time of its final complaint response the landlord had not repaired the extractor fan but it said it repaired it on 1 February 2024. The resident has since said the fan broke a week later and it did not activate automatically as she thought it would.
|
Complaint |
Damp and mould in the property |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
13. The landlord completed mould wash treatments on 6 occasions between January 2022 and November 2023. It was a reasonable response to the resident’s reports. Its specialist contractor usually completed the works within its repair policy timescale of 20 working days. However, its response to the resident’s report in January 2023 was delayed.
14. The landlord advised the resident about the steps she could take to reduce the damp and mould. The resident said she took the landlord’s advice.
15. The landlord installed metering equipment in the property. This sent the resident a text message when humidity levels went above 65% 4 times in 2023. Installing specialist sensor equipment that gave advice around ventilating the home to reduce the risk of mould growth was positive and in keeping with its damp and mould policy.
16. The landlord assessed the heating levels in the property and set the thermostat to an optimum position. However, the resident told the landlord it did not help because the heating was poor, and she had to manually override the settings. It is unclear whether the landlord explained how the thermostat setting would control the damp and mould issues, to manage her expectations and understanding of this solution. Since the landlord’s final complaint response, it replaced the boiler which improved the heating levels and damp. It is unclear whether it considered replacing the heating system sooner.
17. The landlord did not complete prompt or lasting extractor fan repairs which affected the presence of moisture, damp, and mould in the property.
18. The landlord cancelled 2 mould wash works orders because it had already completed treatments within 3 months. This time scale is not in its damp and mould policy.
19. The landlord did not notify the resident it cancelled a mould wash it raised on 16 November 2023. This caused her further time and trouble pursuing the repair.
20. On 19 December 2023 the licensing and enforcement officer told the landlord to complete damp and mould repairs within 28 days. The landlord did not respond to this request or complete the repairs within this timescale.
21. The landlord and the resident agree her property is overcrowded and caused the damp and mould. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it would install another extractor fan to help reduce the humidity and moisture. This was positive but it did not tell the resident when it would do the works. In October 2023, the resident told us it did not install another extractor fan in line with its survey and its final complaint response.
22. In its final complaint response, the landlord explained rehousing options and provided contact information for further advice. This was reasonable and led to the resident applying for a mutual exchange. There is no evidence the landlord considered if the property was statutory overcrowded or explained any other rehousing options the resident may have, such as access to the local authority rehousing list or its internal rehousing procedures.
23. It is unclear whether it offered compensation for its handling of damp and mould. It would have been reasonable for it to do so for the fallings we have found. We have ordered it to pay compensation to the resident.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
24. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It did not respond to the resident’s January 2023 and October 2023 stage 2 complaints in this timeframe. It recognised its complaint handling delays and offered £230 (£110 and £120) compensation for its complaint handling delays.
25. Its complaint response did not say when it would complete the repairs. It also did not tell the resident if it upheld her complaints.
26. The landlord apologised for its delays and offered compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy and in keeping with our dispute resolution principles: be fair. However, it did not put things right as it did not complete the repairs or tell her when it would complete the repairs. It also repeated the same failings and did not show it learnt from the complaint. Its compensation was not proportionate to the combined impact of the time, trouble, and inconvenience its failings caused the resident. We have ordered additional compensation.
Learning
27. The landlord’s automated repair booking system did not book appointments in keeping with its repair policy timescales. It would have been better if the landlord set this to keep to its policy service standards.
28. The landlord referred to the outcome of a surveyor’s inspection in its final complaint response. It would have been better if it also included an action plan or timeline for the works as evidence it looked to put matters right.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
29. The landlord’s records were unclear about the date the resident raised her January 2023 stage 2 complaint and the date the landlord acknowledged this.
30. Some of the landlord’s repair records were unclear or incomplete. For example, it was unclear whether the extractor fan repair appointment scheduled for 14 April 2023 happened or why the landlord needed to reattend on 18 May 2023. The landlord should consider what guidance it has for staff on completing repairs records.
Communication
31. The landlord’s overall communication was reasonable. However, it kept the resident up to date via its complaint responses, instead of while responding to her repair reports.
32. It would have been better if it provided further information about using the heating thermostat, a clear action plan and/or timeline about the steps it could take to complete the reported repairs.