London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202348651)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348651

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
2. The resident’s request for it to relocate and replace radiators in the property.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a weekly periodic tenancy with the landlord for the property. They acquired the property through a mutual exchange in August 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat within a converted house.
On 31 August 2022 the resident reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord carried out an inspection. Following this, it raised repairs for the guttering.
On 9 January 2023 the resident complained about the time it had taken the landlord to complete outstanding repairs in the property. They said the condition of the property was delaying their ability to become a foster carer. The resident provided a list of the outstanding repairs and asked the landlord to confirm when it would complete them.
On 11 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay in the completion of the repairs. The landlord provided an update on the repairs listed in the complaint. It said it was working to complete the outstanding repairs as soon as possible. It confirmed it would keep the complaint open until the repairs were completed.
On 11 March 2024 the landlord sent the resident a second stage 1 response. It provided an update on the repairs. It offered the resident £1,350 compensation in recognition of its handling of the repairs, the impact of this on the resident, and its handling of the complaint.
On 14 March 2023 the resident escalated the complaint as repairs remained outstanding. They provided a revised list of the outstanding repairs. The resident said the landlord had not properly managed the repairs and the delays had impacted thier ability to start fostering.
On 12 July 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint and provided an update on the list of outstanding repairs. The landlord offered the resident £980 compensation in recognition of the delays. The landlord agreed to provide the resident an update on some of the outstanding repairs. It confirmed an inspection was also scheduled to take place on 27 August 2024 for its maintenance surveyor to address any remaining issues.
The resident referred their complaint to us in August 2024 and said as a resolution to the complaint, they wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs.

Events after the end of the complaints process

In November 2024 the landlord received pre action correspondence from the resident’s solicitor. The letter claimed there was disrepair in the property and referred to the repairs the resident raised in their complaint. On receipt of the correspondence the landlord instructed a survey of the property, which took place on 13 March 2025.
On 4 July 2025 the landlord and the resident made a memorandum of agreement. The terms of the agreement were that the landlord would pay the resident compensation and complete the repairs recommended following the survey in March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s initial complaint to the landlord and their escalation request, both included a list of outstanding repairs.
The scope of this investigation is based on the repairs raised in both stages of the landlord’s complaints process. Some repairs were mentioned at both stages, whereas others were only mentioned in either the stage 1 or stage 2 complaints respectively.
We can only investigate complaints about matters a landlord has had the opportunity to fully review within its complaints procedure. Therefore in deciding the scope of this assessment, we have considered the repairs raised in the initial complaint and reiterated in the resident’s stage 2 escalation.
The matters that fit the criteria are the resident’s report of damp and mould, the associated external and internal repairs, and their request for the renewal and relocation of the radiators.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould

On 31 August 2022 the resident reported damp and mould in the hallway, bathroom and bedroom.
On 11 October 2022 the landlord raised repairs to the front and rear gutters. The repair orders stated the condition of the guttering was causing water penetration to the brickwork and contributing to mould in the living room and rear bedroom.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord has an obligation to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the walls, the roof and guttering. The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. In the event a repair is an emergency, it will attend within 24 hours.
The evidence shows the landlord took the appropriate action to investigate the resident’s report of damp and mould. It raised repairs to the guttering which its inspection identified as a contributing factor to the reported mould.
The resident complained to the landlord on 9 January 2023. They reported repairs were outstanding to the guttering and this was resulting in damp internally. The resident said the internal walls were ‘crumbling’ due to the damp and the wallpaper needed to be removed. The resident also reported some sockets in the property were not working and believed this was due to the damp walls.
On 9 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said:
1. The resident would need to remove the wallpaper as this was their responsibility. The landlord said if the resident found damp on removal of the wallpaper, it would complete the repairs required.
2. It had raised a repair for the walls the resident reported were crumbling. It said its contractor needed to check for asbestos before any plaster work was completed. It confirmed its contractor would contact the resident to arrange the asbestos check.
3. It raised a repair for the guttering and the contractor would contact the resident and complete the repair within 20 working days.
4. It completed repairs to the sockets the resident reported were not working.
The landlord acknowledged its management of the repairs had been poor and it apologised for the delay in the completion of the repairs.
The landlord’s response provided an update on the repairs. However, it did not show the landlord had investigated the complaint using the evidence available from its inspection in 2022. The surveyors findings in 2022 suggested the issues with the guttering was contributing to the damp internally, so it is logical to assume the guttering repair would need to be addressed before any internal works. The landlord acknowledged it had not effectively managed repairs, but its complaint response did not show a commitment to improving this. As the guttering was identified as the contributing factor to the damp, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure this repair was completed first and then coordinate the internal repairs.
Between January 2023 and February 2024 the landlord:
1. Completed asbestos tests in the property in March 2023.
2. Checked the sockets the resident reported were damp. The contractor attended in April 2023 and found no damp.
3. Completing pointing to the brickwork on the ground floor, on 7 February 2023.
4. Inspected the guttering on 2 February 2023. The contractor reported the gutters were clear. It also reported the internal damp was not aligned with the location of the gutters.
5. Inspected the guttering again on 4 December 2023. The contractor reported the gutters needed to be cleared and provided images of debris in the guttering.
6. Inspected the property on 24 January 2024. The surveyor found no issues with the wall plaster, however, suggested thermal boards may be required to external walls.
On 11 March 2024 the landlord issued a second stage 1 response. It said the inspection of the guttering in February 2023 found no issues and did not associate the damp to the guttering. The landlord said a reported roof leak had been passed to its roofing team to look into. It said once the issue with the roof was resolved it could complete the internal repairs. The landlord offered the resident £1,200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience they experienced due to the delays.
The landlord’s second stage 1 response did not give the resident clarity on when it would complete the works, which was unreasonable. The resident had first reported the issue more than a year earlier and was still without a timeframe or clear plan on how the landlord was going to resolve this. The information in the response also conflicted with the evidence the landlord had about the repair. Specifically, the landlord mentioned a roof leak and said the guttering was found with no issues. However, both the surveyor who attended in 2022 and the contractor who attended in December 2023, found issues with the guttering.
On 14 March 2024 the resident escalated their complaint and reiterated the repairs to guttering and the internal walls were outstanding.
On 12 July 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the complaint. It said its surveyor had confirmed there was no issue with the roof and the issue with damp was associated with the guttering. The landlord said it had seen evidence the front guttering was clear, however, not the rear guttering. It said it would raise an order for the inspection of the rear guttering. It said it was waiting for its planning team to arrange this. The landlord said it was happy to treat the mould internally however required the resident to remove the wallpaper. The landlord offered £920 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s final response to the complaint did not provide the resident with a resolution to the outstanding issues. It also demonstrated no substantive progress had been made on the repairs. The final response confirmed the damp was associated with issues with the guttering and not the roof as the landlord previously suggested. This same information was ascertained in 2022 and there is no evidence the landlord completed the repairs to the guttering at any point between 2022 and July 2024 when it provided its final response. The issues causing the damp were still outstanding and the landlord did not provide the resident with definitive information about what repairs it was going to complete and when.
Following the end of the complaints process, the resident’s solicitor sent the landlord pre action correspondence. The landlord instructed a surveyor to assess the repair issues raised. The survey was completed in March 2025 and found repairs were required to the guttering. The survey did not find damp and mould in the property,however, the surveyor reported discolouration to the walls and cracks to the plaster in the living room from water penetration to the bay area of the wall.
A memorandum of agreement was made by the parties, part of which was the landlord’s agreement to complete repairs identified in the March 2025 survey, by the end of October 2025. The landlord has also paid the resident £2,000 compensation.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
The landlord’s failure to address the guttering, which was found to be contributing to damp in the property since 2022, led to a significant impact on the resident over a prolonged period of time. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation awards of more than £1000, where serious failings have occurred. In this case the landlord offered the resident £4,120 compensation in relation to their complaint. The level of compensation the landlord has offered is therefore, aligned to the compensation we would consider proportionate in the circumstances. In addition the landlord’s commitment to complete the repairs within 90 days of the agreement, provides the resident with a clear timeframe for completion. Taken together this leads to a finding of reasonable redress.

The landlord’s response to the request for it to relocate and renew radiators in the property

In the resident’s complaint to the landlord dated 9 January 2023, they stated radiators needed to be replaced and relocated. The resident did not specify what radiators they were referring to and there are no repair reports associated with radiators prior to the resident’s complaint.
On 11 January 2023 the landlord provided its first stage 1 response. It confirmed no orders had been raised for the radiators in the property and asked the resident why they wanted the radiators to be relocated.
The resident responded on 13 January 2023 and said they had spoken with a staff member of the landlord about the radiators. The resident said the radiators in one of the bedrooms and the living room were in the wrong location. They also said the radiators in those rooms were not heating the room efficiently and so they wanted larger radiators.
The landlord has an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to maintain the fixtures and fittings for heating.
Given the landlord’s obligation, we would expect it to take action to investigate the efficiency of the heating on receipt of the resident’s correspondence on 13 January 2023. However, once the resident provided this information, the landlord did not take timely action to investigate the concern the resident had raised.
On 10 January 2024 the landlord raised an order for a heat loss survey. The survey was completed and the contractor provided a quotation to replace 1 radiator.
The landlord provided its second stage 1 response to the complaint on 11 March 2024. It reiterated it would not relocate radiators without a valid reason.
A review of the landlord’s second stage 1 response show it failed to acknowledge the delay to investigate the resident’s concern about the efficiency of the radiators. The landlord reiterated it would not relocate the radiators unless it had a valid reason, however, failed to include or account for any update stemming from the heat loss survey it completed in January 2024.
On 14 March 2024 the resident escalated their complaint. They stated a contractor was due to attend on 8 February 2024 to install new radiators, however, the landlord had cancelled the repair as it needed to install thermal boards to walls before it hung a radiator.
On 20 March 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed it approved follow on work from the heat loss survey, to renew one radiator. The radiator to be replaced was in the hallway, not the lounge or the bedroom as the resident mentioned in their complaint.
On 12 July 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it was waiting for confirmation regarding the thermal board installation and once it had this, it could arrange the installation of the radiator. The landlord’s offer of £980 compensation at stage 2 included the consideration of the overall time it had taken to address the issues raised in the complaint.
Based on the feedback from the heat loss survey the landlord completed in January 2024, there is no evidence the heaters in the bedroom and the living room required relocating or replacing. The survey in March 2025 also did not identify defects to the radiators. The surveyor recommended an inspection by a heating engineer as the resident continued to report they believe the heating system is inefficient.
Overall the evidence shows there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord investigating the resident’s concerns about the efficiency of the radiators in the living room and one of the bedrooms. After the resident reported the issues on 13 January 2023, it took the landlord a year to arrange a heat loss survey. While there is no evidence to show the radiators needed to be relocated or replaced with larger ones, the time taken to establish this was unreasonable.
The resident has continued to report inefficient heating. As part of the memorandum of agreement between the parties, the landlord has undertaken to arrange another inspection of the heating system. Taking this into account, alongside the failings identified earlier in this report, the total offer of £4,120 amounts to a determination of reasonable redress. The landlord’s overall offer of redress has satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging them. At stage 2 the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days of the escalation request.
The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 9 January 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 January 2023. The response was within its policy time frame.
The landlord agreed to keep the stage 1 complaint open until it addressed the repairs. It sent the resident a second stage 1 response on 11 March 2024 and offered them £150 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling.
The landlord’s policy states it will escalate a complaint to stage 2 if a resident is dissatisfied with its decision and requests it.
Prior to the landlord issuing its second stage 1 response, the resident had not requested an escalation of the complaint. The landlord’s decision to provide a further stage 1 response appears to have been due to the complaint remaining open and unresolved since January 2023. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered an escalation of the complaint instead. The complaint had been outstanding with no resolution for more than 12 months when it provided its second stage 1 response. This elapsed time would indicate the need to progress the complaint and continued dissatisfaction from the resident.
On 14 March the resident escalated their complaint. The landlord provided its response to the complaint on 12 July 2024. It offered the resident £60 for its complaint handling.
The landlord’s offers of compensation at both stages in relation to the substantive issues of the complaint did not provide a resolution to the matters raised by the resident. The landlord’s failure to resolve the issues via the complaints procedure meant the resident felt it necessary to put more time and trouble to instruct a solicitor and engage in pre-action correspondence.
The complaint procedure is supposed to be a mechanism to resolve disputes in their entirety. In this case the resident had to take steps to instruct a solicitorand it was only at this point the landlord agreed to complete the outstanding repairs within a specified timeframe. That should not have been necessary and indicates a significant failure in both the complaints process and the landlord’s complaint handling.
Although it is positive the landlord agreed reasonable compensation with the resident, this was not until after the stage 2 response. Therefore, the landlord failed to effectively put things right during the complaints process. It also missed an opportunity to learn lessons at the time of its original investigation.
The landlord therefore did not investigate the resident’s concerns appropriately through its complaints process. If it had, it could have reasonably avoided the impact, and time and trouble caused to the resident. It also could have resolved the issues raised in the complaint sooner. As such, the landlord did not act in line with our dispute resolution principles. Due to this, the resident understandably lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage the repairs. For these reasons, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for it to relocate and renew radiators in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £360 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the sum of £210 awarded during its internal complaints process for its complaint handling, if already paid. The additional £150 compensation we have ordered must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account.
2. Provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.