London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202504224)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202504224 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London & Quadrant Housing Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
15 December 2025 |
Background
- The resident lives with her family. Her son has asthma and environmental allergies, which the landlord is aware of. She complained about damp and mould caused by a leak under the bath.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of damp and mould.
- Complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
- There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord failed to act in line with its policies. While it offered some redress, it failed to acknowledge delays and poor communication. It did not apologise or demonstrate any learning.
- The landlord acknowledged the delays in its handling of the complaint. It apologised and offered redress in line with our remedies guidance.
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:
|
No later than 12 January 2026 |
|
|
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 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 from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 12 January 2026 |
|
|
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. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. 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. A copy of the report must be provided to us and the resident by the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:
The survey report must set out:
Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works |
No later than 12 January 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £120 as agreed in the complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for its complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
25 February 2025 |
The resident complained to the landlord that nothing had been done since she reported damp and mould. She said it was severely affecting her vulnerable son’s health, and he was unable to sleep in the bedroom. She wanted an inspection, a clear timeline to solve the problem and a temporary move if needed. |
|
16 April 2025 to 1 May 2025 |
The resident chased the landlord twice as she had not received a formal response to her complaint. It logged this as a new complaint on 1 May 2025. |
|
8 May 2025 |
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had inspected the property and fixed the leak that had caused the issue. It also completed a mould wash and provided a dehumidifier to dry the property. It said a temporary move was not required.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She was unhappy with its complaint handling and delays resolving the damp and mould. She said it had made the decision not to move her without viewing the property. She wanted a more detailed inspection and compensation. |
|
9 May 2025 – 9 June 2025 |
The landlord sent the resident 2 escalation acknowledgements on different dates. It said it could not respond within its usual timescales but would consider compensation for the delay. |
|
25 June 2025 |
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said it followed environmental health’s advice by logging a new complaint on 1 May 2025 and apologised for the delay. It confirmed the Heat Recovery Ventilation unit (HRV) had been repaired to improve ventilation and the surveyor would arrange a follow on inspection. It apologised for the delay and offered £520 compensation comprising:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate as the issue continued. She felt the landlord had ignored her son’s vulnerabilities. She believed it had not fully inspected the property and said the remedial works were still outstanding. She wanted a full independent inspection, a timescale for repairs, a decision on a temporary move and additional compensation. |
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 |
Reports of damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
- The resident was concerned that the damp and mould was harming her family’s health, particularly her vulnerable son. She said the situation was causing stress. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
What we did investigate
- The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. Our investigation has, therefore, relied on the available evidence.
- The resident first reported damp and mould to the landlord on 5 January 2025. It sent a plumber that day to look for a leak and survey the damp and mould. This was in line with its repairs policy to prioritise vulnerable households. We have seen no evidence of any action taken following this.
- A week after the resident made her complaint to the landlord identified a leak in the bathroom and carried out a clean and shield. It took 32 working days to repair the leak, resulting in the mould returning and spreading. This was not in line with its policy which aims to complete repairs within 20 working days. Given it was aware of the household vulnerabilities, it did not demonstrate that it acted in line with its policy in supporting residents with vulnerabilities.
- The resident asked the landlord to temporarily move her, citing concerns about her sons health and saying the bedrooms were uninhabitable. It declined her request but gave no explanation. It conducted a further clean and shield and provided a dehumidifier to aid drying the property on 22 April 2025, 2 working days after the repair.
- The resident reported the issues to environmental health on 1 May 2025. The landlord inspected the next day. Its records show that the main bedroom showed high moisture readings along the skirting but no visible mould. The dehumidifier was aiding in drying out and had already dried the second bedroom. The bathroom had high moisture, black mould, and a broken extractor fan. It arranged a second dehumidifier and mould removal for 27 May 2025. It also arranged repairs to the heat recovery ventilation (HRV) unit including the fan for 9 May 2025. It completed these in line with its repairs policy. It confirmed the property was safe and promised a follow-up inspection to plan remedial works once dry.
- The resident contacted the landlord repeating her concerns about her son. She was unhappy the inspection did not include the sub floors and cavity walls. It said it would not check these areas, claiming dehumidifiers would dry them and “kill” any mould.
- The resident repeated her concerns about damp and mould in the subfloors and wall cavities. She challenged the landlord’s refusal to offer temporary rehousing 5 times in May and June 2025. She said that its decision had relied on photographs. It was reasonable that its inspection on 2 May 2025 deemed the property safe. However, it should have explained its reasons more clearly for why it would not offer a temporary move.
- The resident chased the landlord for the follow on inspection. It apologised for the delay in its final response. She confirmed the inspection happened but said its findings werenot shared.She confirmed that there was no visible damp and mould but she remained unhappy that the subfloors and cavity walls had not been checked. She also said that repairs remained outstanding including the HRV unit. It was unclear when it raised repairs for this.
- The landlord offered the resident £400 for distress and inconvenience. While its offer could be said to put things right for the resident, it failed to apologise or address the delays inspecting the property and repairing the leak. Its communication was poor, and it failed to consider household vulnerabilities or provide reassurance that the property was safe. It also failed to share its post inspection findings with her, and it is not clear whether all repairs have been concluded. We have therefore made an order to re-inspect the property and complete any outstanding works.
|
Complaint |
The complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint and stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. The timescales within the landlord’s complaint policy are in line with the Code.
- The resident complained to the landlord on 25 February 2025. It acknowledged this the same day. However, it failed to provide any response and logged a new complaint on 1 May 2025. It sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident 40 working days later than its policy timescale based on the initial complaint date.
- The landlord sent 2 acknowledgements of the resident’s escalation request 4 days apart. These had conflicting deadlines, likely causing confusion. While it said there would be a delay in providing its stage 2 response, it failed to give a new deadline.
- That said, the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered £120 compensation. This was is in line with our remedies guidance.
Learning
- Landlords must ensure accuracy of information given in complaint responses to avoid confusion.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- Landlords must keep clear records and share these during investigations.
Communication
- Landlords should ensure that they provide clear explanations of findings and decisions to residents.
- While it acknowledged negative feedback and poor communication in an email to the resident, it failed to do this within its complaint responses.