London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202429008)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is aware that he has mental health vulnerabilities including anxiety. He complained to the landlord about delays dealing with repair work in his bathroom.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
   2. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

4. The landlord did not respond to the report of damp and mould in line with its policy. There were avoidable delays in it completing repair work to the bathroom. Its communication throughout was poor and it did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. The matter remained outstanding for a significant period following its final response. Due to this its compensation offer was not proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord compensated the resident for the delays in its complaint handling in its final response.

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 did not investigate

6. The resident raised concerns about the affect of the damp and mould on his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a claim for any illness caused via the courts. 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 illness 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 did investigate

7. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents to manage their expectations. They should also ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents on actions taken to resolve damp and mould.
8. The landlord failed to maintain effective communication with the resident throughout this case. It did not provide regular updates, and he had to spend considerable time chasing for information and progress. These communication failures worsened the situation and increased the impact on him. This damaged the relationship between the parties.
9. The resident chased the landlord on 7 and 11 October 2024 to ask it to bring forward its inspection of the damp and mould due to the issue worsening. The evidence shows that it advised this was not possible and said he should clean the mould with an anti mould solution. It had been over 5 months since his initial report of the issue and it had not yet assessed the area. On 11 October 2024, the bathroom ceiling subsequently collapsed.
10. There is no evidence that the landlord adapted its response based on its knowledge of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Given he had expressed that he was vulnerable and distressed due to the situation, it would have been reasonable for it to consider this. Bringing forward its inspection date, as requested by its complaint team and the resident on several occasions would have demonstrated its commitment to resolving the matter.
11. The landlord failed to assess the damp and mould in line with its policy. Its inspection on 26 November 2024 was 121 working days later than the 20 working day response time set out in its damp and mould policy. Its lack of urgency in addressing the matter was inappropriate, particularly given its knowledge of the vulnerabilities present in the household and that the issue had been further complicated by the collapse of the ceiling.
12. The landlord’s initial response to the bathroom ceiling collapse on 11 October 2024 was timely and it attended on the same day to make the area safe. However, delays ensued and it subsequently completed repair work to bathroom on 6 May 2025, over 6 months later. This was significantly later than the 25 day timescale for completion of routine repairs set out in its repairs policy. Although we are aware it faced some difficulties in addressing the repair work due to issues with a leak from a neighbouring property, it did not demonstrate that it was proactively seeking a resolution during this time.
13. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing this, we assess whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
14. The landlord apologised for the situation in its complaint responses and offered the resident £190 in compensation to acknowledge its failings up to October 2024. He faced further delays following the landlord’s final response, with it completing work over 6 months later. Due to this we have determined its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the delays and detriment the resident experienced with the matter continuing for over 11 months. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have made orders for it to apologise and pay increased compensation.
15. The resident has told us that the damp and mould has returned in his bathroom and he is concerned that the landlord has not identified the root cause. We have made an order for the landlord to attend and inspect the issue.

16. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The landlord acknowledged and issued its stage 1 response in line with its policy timescales.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement was issued to the resident 3 working days later than the timescales set out in its policy. It issued its final response within its published timescales.
19. In the landlord’s final response, it offered £20 compensation to the resident for its poor complaint handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance and was reasonable given the minor delay.

Learning

20. The landlord should ensure that it adopts the approach set out in its policies when it is aware of residents vulnerabilities.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. In a special investigation report published in July 2023, we made recommendations for the landlord to ensure it kept accurate records. It is important that landlords keep detailed records about contact, repairs, and services provided. Clear records assist in understanding the condition of a property, monitoring outstanding works and providing accurate information to residents. They also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may engage in. It should ensure that it considers the learning set out in its action plan and the special investigation.