London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202413110)

Decision
Case ID	202413110
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 December 2025

Background

The resident lives with a joint tenant and her daughter. They have had damp and mould issues in the property since 2020. The resident told the landlord about vulnerabilities in the household that could be impacted by the damp and mould. They requested to be rehoused a result.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould in the property

We found that the landlord made some attempts to address the damp and mould, but issues with communication from both parties delayed progress. However, the landlord delayed in arranging and carrying out an inspection. It also failed to identify vulnerabilities in the property. It provided appropriate rehousing information. When it missed details in its stage 1 response, it apologised and offered compensation to put things right.

Complaint handling

We found that the landlord failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) by not acknowledging the complaint or escalation without contact from us. It also failed to explain the reason for its delays.

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 identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £470 made up as follows: £320 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. 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 as offered in its complaint responses.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 07 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord explores proactive measures to prevent future access or communication issues for repairs.
We recommend that the landlord updates its records to reflect any vulnerabilities in the household, if not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 and 8 March 2024	The resident’s daughter reported ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property. She raised concerns about the risks and impact of mould on her asthma.
April 2024	The resident raised a complaint. She said: there was damp and black mould in several areas of the property, including on her bed, pillows and clothes the landlord kept applying temporary measures to remove the mould, despite ongoing issues there were 2 asthmatics in the property she had reported a damp cupboard in June 2021, but the landlord had taken no action to resolve it she wanted a permanent solution to the damp and mould or to be rehoused, as well as compensation for the inconvenience caused.
25 October 2024	In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it: had tried contacting the resident many times about the matter, but she had not responded to requests to book a mould wash called her between July and August 2024 and requested photos of the damp and mould, but she failed to respond would inspect the property once the resident sent photos had rehousing policies which involved assessing living situations, urgent needs and available properties. It provided a link to information on its website suggested that the resident discuss her housing needs with a Neighbourhood Housing Lead (NHL) would not offer compensation as it had made numerous attempts to contact her to offer support.
31 October 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord’s temporary measures did not work and stated: mould was all around the property and it was damp under the carpet the landlord had failed to provide details of her NHL she disputed the landlord’s decision not to offer compensation when her personal items were damaged by the mould the response was disappointing as there were vulnerable occupants she wanted a permanent solution, not temporary measures.
11 December 2024	In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it: had been unable to assess the situation due to a lack of contact required more photos, as previous ones sent had no date or location apologised for missing the NHL details and provided them, stating the NHL would be in touch to discuss the issues would assess damaged items under its insurance and gave its details had requested a surveyor’s inspection of the damp and provided a link to information on rehousing again had no reports of vulnerabilities that the issues could impact offered £20 compensation for not addressing all points in stage 1.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted this Service as she was unhappy with the response. She said she wanted permanent solutions to the issues or to be rehoused. She also wanted compensation for inconvenience.

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	The reports of damp and mould in the property
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

As part of her complaint, the resident asked to be rehoused. The Housing Ombudsman can only look at complaints about transfer applications that are outside Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. Complaints about applications under Part 6 are handled by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). However, we have reviewed how the landlord responded to the resident’s rehousing concerns and whether it acted reasonably in the information it provided.

What we did investigate

In March 2024 the resident’s daughter reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord said it could act if the named resident reported the issues. The daughter was a named tenant, and the property had a history of damp and mould. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken a proactive approach to arrange an inspection with the resident. The response was not in line with its damp and mould policy which states it will anticipate where issues may arise and intervene earlier. This likely caused the resident and her daughter inconvenience.
The resident’s daughter also reported vulnerabilities in the property. The landlord stated that it could add a health indicator once the named resident called in. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to record the vulnerabilities when informed by the resident’s daughter. This was not in line with its vulnerable resident’s policy which states it can record a tenant’s vulnerabilities when informed by a third party. This likely added to the resident’s inconvenience.
The resident reported black mould and damp in her complaint. The landlord responded on 25 April 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding and said a contractor would attend. The contractor called 5 working days later to arrange a mould treatment. It is unclear what exact date the resident raised her complaint; therefore, we cannot assess if the landlord responded in a reasonable time. This is a record keeping failure.
The resident told the contractor on 2 May 2024 that she could clean the mould herself and wanted repairs to the walls in her property. She said she would contact the landlord about it. On 13 and 14 May 2024, the contractor called the resident again to follow up and arrange mould treatment. The resident said she would call back after speaking to the landlord.
The contractor made reasonable attempts to progress the works. It is unclear if it notified the landlord that the resident sought alternative repairs. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have monitored the contractor’s attempts and followed up with the resident, given it was aware of reports of damp and mould in the property. This was a failure in the landlord’s communication and its obligation to address the issue.
The resident told the landlord on 22 August 2024 that the mould was getting worse and she wanted it to investigate. The landlord responded on the same day requesting additional information and photos to help determine the severity and cause of the mould. There is no evidence that the resident responded to this request.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained it had been unable to act on the damp and mould due to a lack of communication from the resident. While it is a fundamental part of our role to consider whether the landlord acted appropriately in response to a repair request, we also consider how the resident’s own actions may have contributed to the situation. The landlord made efforts to treat the mould, and any delays caused by the resident’s failure to respond or refusal of appointments were beyond its control.
In its response, the landlord said it would arrange an inspection upon receipt of the photos and information requested from the resident. It explained that it needed the information to help decide the next steps. This was reasonable.
The resident requested to be rehoused because of the damp and mould. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had policies on rehousing and explained the factors involved in considering an application. It provided a link to further information on its website and suggested that the resident discuss the matter with her NHL. This was appropriate and in line with its Allocations and Lettings policy.
In her escalation, the resident said she was unhappy that the landlord had not provided details of the NHL. The landlord apologised for its error in its stage 2 response. It provided full details of the NHL and included the link to rehousing information again. It offered the resident £20 compensation. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
In her escalation request, the resident said she was unhappy that the landlord had not offered compensation as her belongings were damaged by mould. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that the resident could claim for damaged items via her home contents insurance. This was in line with its compensation policy. The landlord gave its insurance details and information on the claim process, which was reasonable.
The resident said she was disappointed with the landlord’s response as there were occupants in the property vulnerable to mould. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was unable to see any reports of vulnerabilities that the issues raised could impact. The evidence shows that the landlord was notified of asthmatics in the property in March and April 2024. The landlord’s response was unreasonable and failed to consider its obligations under the Housing Act 2004 in considering hazards and risks within the property. This likely caused distress to the resident.
The resident also said that she did not want temporary solutions such as mould washes as she believed the cause of the mould was the damp floor. The resident declined an appointment for a mould wash on 4 November 2024, stating that she had cleaned the mould and wanted the damp floor addressed.
On 7 November 2024 the landlord said it had referred the damp issue to a building surveyor for an inspection. Its stage 2 response confirmed the referral. The landlord’s records show it submitted a referral for a damp inspection on 5 December 2024, 20 working days later after stating it had done it. It is unclear why it delayed in making the referral. The landlord’s actions were not in line with its damp and mould policy which states that following a report, it will arrange an assessment within 20 working days.
The landlord inspected the property on 22 January 2025, finding a blocked manhole as the cause of damp and completing both external and internal repairs to address the damp, condensation and mould. Whilst this may have resolved the issues, the inspection took place 31 working days after the referral to a building surveyor. This was a failure to comply with the timescales in its damp and mould policy, which was inappropriate.
The resident requested compensation for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s lack of action. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it would not uphold the request as it could see no evidence of inconvenience. While the landlord made some attempts to resolve the issue, there were times when a lack of communication with the resident could have contributed to delays.
The landlord failed to act when notified of the damp and mould and delayed in making a referral and carrying out an inspection. It also failed to appropriately acknowledge vulnerabilities in the property. It did offer compensation for missing out the NHL details; however, we have made an order to pay an additional £300 for any distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report. This is in line with our remedies guidance for findings that have had no permanent impact and aligns with our Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code is the 2024 edition.
Around April 2024 the resident submitted a complaint form expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to ongoing damp and mould issues. Whilst the landlord responded, it failed to acknowledge the complaint. This was not in line with the Code which states that complaints must be acknowledged, defined and logged at stage 1 within 5 working days of the complaint being received.
.
After contact from this Service on 11 October 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 October 2024. It issued its stage 1 response on 25 October 2024, 8 working days after its acknowledgment. Whilst this was in line with the Code, the overall time to respond to the resident was around 6 months after she raised her complaint. This was unreasonable.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 31 October 2024. She contacted us on 20 November 2024 after receiving no acknowledgment of her request. On 4 December 2024 we asked the landlord to respond to the resident, and it sent an acknowledgement the following day. It issued its stage 2 complaint response 4 working days later. The landlord failed to comply with the Code by not acknowledging the complaint or escalation within a reasonable time. It provided its responses only after intervention from us.
In both complaint responses, the landlord failed to recognise or offer any explanation for its delays. This was not in line with the Code which states that reasons for delays must be clearly explained to the resident.
The lack of explanation likely caused the resident distress. We have therefore made an order to pay the resident £150 for its complaint handling failures, which is in line with our remedies guidance for findings that have had no permanent impact. We have also made orders to apologise to the resident and set out what it has learned from the failures identified in this report. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair and put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide details of when the resident submitted her complaint. At times, this impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

Our investigation identified times when the landlord failed to take a proactive approach in communicating with the resident. The lack of communication likely contributed to delays in repairs, which could result in a lack of confidence in the landlord. We have made an order for the landlord to set out any learning from this complaint and recommendations around its communication with residents.