London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202407152)

Decision
Case ID	202407152
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	16 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a block of flats. They complained about the landlord’s response to a report of damage, damp and mould in their property following a leak, as well as their request to replace the front door after forced entry by emergency services. They asked us to investigate as they were not satisfied with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Resident’s report of damage, damp and mould in the property following a leak.
2. Report to repair the broken front door.
3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage, damp and mould in the property following a leak.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the report to repair the broken front door.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Report of damage, damp and mould in the property following a leak

The landlord appropriately attempted urgent access to the resident’s property to investigate a possible leak and contacted the insurer to inspect the possible damage. However, there was a lack of clarity with the resident about how it would identify itself before inspection. It had not provided proactive updates about the investigation into the leak and its repair and delayed its response to the resident’s further report that an insurance claim should be made for the damage, damp and mould in the property.

Report to repair the broken front door

The landlord acted reasonably by making the resident’s doorway safe after the emergency and was not responsible for replacing it under the lease, which required compliance with fire regulations. However, the delay to provide the fire safety specifications prevented the resident from arranging a proper replacement sooner.

The complaint

The landlord had not acknowledged and responded to the resident’s property damage complaint in time and delivered a stage 2 response late. While it acknowledged the delay and offered compensation, this did not fully recognise its failings.

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 13 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the report of damage, damp and mould in the property following a leak £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the report to repair the broken front door £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. 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 to the resident.	No later than 13 January 2026
3	Specific action The landlord must write to the resident to set out the next steps, if required, should they wish to pursue a claim with the insurer about the leak from early 2023. The landlord must provide us with a copy of this.	No later than 13 January 2026
4	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 13 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any recent concerns about the leak.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 February 2023 and 8 February 2023	The landlord explained to the resident that a neighbour reported water penetrating through the ceiling and that it might have been coming from the soil pipe in the resident’s property. It asked to access this.
9 February 2023	The resident replied to the landlord that they would not refuse access to their property to inspect the issue. However, they asked the landlord to provide 24-hour notice, confirm what it would do to inspect the issue, and that it used identification and the building intercom. They also said they had damage, damp and mould in their property due to the leak.
16 March 2023 to 28 March 2023	The managing agent said that a loss adjuster for the insurance company wanted to inspect the property. The resident queried this, and it replied that it had found and fixed the leak. It said the insurer wanted to inspect affected properties and provided the loss adjuster’s number.
31 May 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. They said they had not heard back about what would be done to remedy the damage caused to their property due to the leak.
31 December 2023	The emergency services broke down the resident’s front door due to a medical emergency. The landlord attended to make the door safe until it was replaced.
9 January 2024	The resident complained that the landlord would not replace their front door after the emergency services had broken it to gain entry. They also reiterated that the landlord had not remedied the damage, damp and mould in their property following the leak.
10 January 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response about the door. It said as the resident was a shared owner they were responsible for the door repair.
30 January 2024	The resident did not agree with the landlord’s response and escalated the complaint about the door and property damage.
5 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It reiterated what it said at stage 1 about the door repair. In addition, it incorporated the complaint about the damp and mould and said that the resident needed to raise this to the managing agent. It offered £30 to the resident for the delay to provide the stage 2 response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to us because they said the landlord failed to replace the broken door, repair the leak, or address the black mould. They reported incurring costs for inspections and repairs. They wanted the ongoing leak resolved, remediation of the damp and mould, and reimbursement for their contractor’s report.

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 report of damage, damp and mould in the property following a leak
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident raised additional issues with the landlord, but there’s no evidence these had the opportunity to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. These issues included the landlord’s behaviour, their handling of antisocial behaviour, the installation of a video doorbell, reports about the resident’s car space, and non-resident’s accessing the resident’s floor. These were separated into a new case. This investigation will consider matters that have been through the landlord’s internal complaint procedure as detailed above and brought to us for investigation.

What we have investigated

The underlease sets out that the landlord is responsible for the structural parts of the building, external walls, and service media within the building, that does not exclusively serve the resident’s property.
The landlord informed the resident that a leak might have originated from their property. It tried to arrange an inspection within 24 hours. The resident requested more notice for the inspection. They said they wanted an explanation of how it would inspect the issue, assurance the landlord would identify itself on the day and use the building intercom. They also reported damage, damp, and mould in the property due to the leak, which they believed should have been covered by the landlord’s insurance. The landlord said it would attend with a contractor in uniform, explained the inspection process, and offered to call the resident about it. This was reasonable.
The underlease allows the landlord to access the property with reasonable notice and, in emergencies, without notice to repair an issue. In these circumstances, it appropriately attempted to arrange entry within 24 hours to inspect the potential leak and the resident’s reports. It was also appropriate that it continued its efforts to arrange an inspection. However, it could have further assured the resident of their concerns as to whether it would formally identify itself over the intercom before entering the property. This was a shortfall of its service.
The landlord continued to try to arrange an inspection and attend to the resident’s report of damage, damp and mould in the property. It explained to the resident that it had not sourced the leak and that they could choose to use their own contractor to inspect the issue. It said that if the leak was found in the property, the resident would be responsible for repairs which may be claimed through insurance.
The landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with the shared ownership guide, which confirmed the resident was responsible for all internal repairs and maintenance in their property. It was also in line with the underlease that confirmed the landlord was not responsible for damages to the property through defects in the building, unless covered by insurance.
The resident arranged their own inspection and said the landlord agreed to cover the cost. There was no evidence it agreed to this. The landlord had instead previously offered to carry out inspections of a possible leak in the property, and subsequent damage, damp and mould in the property. This position was appropriate and in line with the underlease.
The resident chased the landlord for a response to their inspection report and asked the managing agent about the leak. The managing agent confirmed the leak was found and fixed. However, it was unclear what the cause of the leak was, when it was repaired, and there is no evidence the resident was proactively updated about this. This was a failure of the landlord’s record keeping, and the lack of proactive communication and clarity about the repair was unreasonable.
The managing agent tried to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property by the insurance loss adjuster. After the resident said they wanted to contact the loss adjuster first, it provided the contact details and reference number. It was appropriate and in line with the underlease to notify the insurer of a possible claim for risks that may be covered by the landlord’s insurance. There is no evidence after this time that the resident provided access for the loss adjuster to inspect the property, or that an insurance claim had been answered.
The resident later complained that the landlord was liable for damage, damp, and mould caused by the leak and said it should be covered by the landlord’s insurance. It was unclear whether the lack of response about this was from the landlord or the insurer. It was also unclear what the insurance requirements were, including whether the resident or landlord could make a claim.
There was no evidence the landlord responded to the resident about their further concerns that an insurance claim should be made. It should have obtained an updated position from the resident and the insurer to establish whether a claim had been made and what the next steps may have been, to keep in line with the underlease to ensure a claim was made promptly.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it explained where the resident should report damp and mould. However, it did not recognise the failures we have found, as set out under the Summary of Reasons of this report. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
We have ordered the landlord to put things right for the resident which includes obtaining an updated position from its insurer and setting out what the next steps may be for the resident.
We have also ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. A mitigating factor in our consideration of compensation is that the landlord had attempted access to the property for an inspection and attempted to arrange an insurance visit.

Complaint	The report to repair the broken front door
Finding	Service failure

The landlord made the resident’s doorway safe on the day the emergency services broke it down for a medical emergency. The resident said the landlord should replace the door as it had given the emergency services an out-of-date contact number for them. The underlease and repair policy sets out that the landlord is not responsible for the doors that are for the sole use of the resident’s property and that if the door needs to be replaced, it must comply with fire regulations. The landlord confirmed in April 2024 that the resident should replace the door like for like.
Considering the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to make the door safe after the emergency. However, it was not responsible for replacing the door. This was appropriate and in line with the underlease.
The landlord had set out that the door must meet fire regulations of the building. The resident asked what the specifications were, but this was not confirmed until after they complained and the landlord provided its stage 2 response. This was unreasonable and delayed the resident from replacing the door.
In the complaint response the landlord set out the resident is responsible to replace the door to meet the fire regulations of the building. However, it had not recognised the failures we have found, as set out under the Summary of Reasons of this report. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. Since the complaint the resident was assured of what the specifications were to replace the door, 6 months after they had asked. They confirmed they had replaced the door and sourced a fire assessment to ensure it was compliant with regulations.
We have made orders to put things right for the resident which includes compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of this issue.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition.
The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and the resident should receive a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. At stage 2, the resident should receive a formal response within 20 working days of the resident escalating it. The landlord’s complaint policy was in line with the Code at the time.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint about property damage caused by the leak in the time set out by its complaint policy. It delayed the complaint process and inconvenienced the resident who raised it again 7 months later. They also raised a new complaint issue about the damage to their front door.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response the next day about the damage to their front door. This was appropriate and in line with its complaint policy. However, it did not respond about the resident’s complaint about damage to their property following the leak. This was inappropriate and not in line with its complaint policy.
The resident escalated their complaint at the end of January 2024 about their front door and damage to their property following the leak. The landlord provided a stage 2 response 46 working days later. This delay was inappropriate and not in line with its complaint policy.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that it delayed providing a stage 2 response and compensated £30 that it offset in the resident’s rent arrears. It was reasonable to recognise issues it found. However, it did not recognise all the failings set out under the Summary of Reasons section of this report. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
We have made orders to put things right for the resident which includes an apology, setting out learnings to prevent this happening in the future, and compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to answer the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records. Landlords who keep accurate records can meet their obligations. The landlord kept some records between it, the resident and managing agent. However, it had not always acted on its records to provide responses to the resident and answer the complaint within the timescales set out in its complaint policy. It also had not provided record of what caused the leak and when it was fixed, which made it difficult to investigate at times.

Communication

The landlord had not kept oversight of the managing agent to ensure responses to the resident were provided promptly. It had also not provided transparent and timely updates about its investigation into the leak and had not communicated effectively during the complaint journey.