London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202447088)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447088

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

9 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. damp and mould.
    3. pests.
    4. repairs.
    5. the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident moved into the property through mutual exchange on 20 May 2024. The property is a 3-bedroom flat in a house with another flat owned by the landlord. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident of mental health.
  2. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 12 July 2024 and raised repairs. The resident reported ASB from her neighbour from July 2024 onwards. This included noise, verbal abuse, threats, harassment, and CCTV.
  3. Following a phone call with the resident on 19 February 2025, the landlord raised a complaint. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s action in response to the ASB and that it had not told her about ASB issues before her mutual exchange. She also raised concerns about a rat infestation, unresolved damp and mould, and outstanding repairs.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 5 March 2025. It said it had completed pest control work. The landlord confirmed proofing work was booked for 6 March, the radiator repair would be completed on 3 March, and an appointment for window repairs was booked for 10 March 2025. It confirmed claims for damage to personal belongings and/or injury should be made via the resident’s contents insurance, or its own insurer. The landlord confirmed the roof repair was outstanding and it was arranging for scaffolding. It was handling the ASB under a different case number. The landlord apologised for the delays to repairs and communication. It offered compensation of £52.00 for no heating, £120 for distress and inconvenience for failure to recognise impact due to vulnerabilities, £60 for missed appointments, and £20 for time and effort.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 March 2025. She said the issues remained unresolved, she was injured from the radiator, and she wanted fair compensation.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 4 April 2025. The landlord confirmed an ASB case was open and it had provided an action plan the previous day. It acknowledged the resident had raised previous complaints about its handling of ASB in September 2024 and February 2025 which had been closed. The landlord confirmed its contractor would attend to fix the radiator to the wall and damp and mould repairs to the roof were ongoing. The landlord apologised for the impact of dealing with the repairs on the resident’s well-being. It offered additional compensation of £420. It broke this down as £200 for distress and inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities, £20 for complaint handling, and £200 for closing previous ASB complaints.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident told us ASB continued and the rat infestation and damp and mould was still present and a window needed repair.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Some of the issues raised to us by the resident happened following the end of the complaints process. This included further reports about ASB, and a reoccurrence of rats and damp and mould. This investigation centres on the formal complaint made on 19 February 2025 and addressed in the landlord’s final response on 4 April 2025. Any issues or requests which were not included or happened after this should be raised as new complaints with the landlord before they can potentially be investigated by us.
  2. The resident has complained that her situation has impacted her health, including personal injury. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.

Compensation

  1. The landlord offered compensation of £120 at stage 1 and £200 at stage 2 for distress and inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities, and £20 at stage 1 for time and effort. It was not clear which part of the resident’s complaint this related to. For the purpose of this investigation this amount is considered to be in relation to the damp and mould, pests, and repairs parts of the complaint, in which the landlord acknowledged delays.

ASB

  1. The evidence shows the landlord opened an ASB case and recorded a number of incidents in June and July 2024. An internal email from the time stated it had taken actions in line with its ASB policy, including warning letters, providing diary sheets, and advising the resident to call the police. However, there was no evidence of the landlord categorising the ASB, completing an action plan or updating the resident in line with its ASB policy. This says standard priority cases will be logged as ASB and assessed within 3 working days. It also says the landlord will agree an action plan with the reporting party, keep them updated, and update action plans to reflect new information or incidents.
  2. On 5 August 2024, the resident reported that she called the police the previous evening. The landlord appropriately visited the resident the following day, in line with its policy which says it will where necessary, arrange an interview. However, there was no evidence of the landlord sending an action plan after this meeting. This was a failure to fully follow its ASB policy.
  3. The landlord told the resident on 18 October 2024 that it was closing the case due to lack of supporting evidence and no further incidents. This action was in line with its ASB policy which states it can close a case for these reasons. However, there was no evidence of it providing the resident with an update or contacting her to discuss it as set out in its ASB policy.
  4. On 29 November 2024, the resident reported further ASB. The landlord responded within 3 working days in line with its policy on 4 December 2024. The landlord confirmed the actions it had taken which included writing to the neighbour about CCTV cameras, and about an allegation of stealing letters. It also requested ASB diary sheets and crime numbers. This was appropriate given the resident told the landlord she had reported issues to the police. The landlord told the resident it would take further action if the CCTV cameras were still in place after 11 December 2024. The evidence shows the resident had to follow up with the landlord for an update on this. The resident contacted the landlord multiple times in December 2024 to report ASB. There was no evidence of the landlord responding until 15 January 2025. There was also no evidence of the landlord updating an action plan.
  5. The resident reported a further incident of ASB on 5 February 2025. The landlord responded appropriately on the same day. It requested further evidence from the resident, offered a meeting to discuss her concerns, and confirmed it needed more supporting evidence to apply for an injunction for the CCTV. However, again there was no evidence of the landlord agreeing how and when it would update the resident. As a result, she took the time and trouble to follow up and raise a complaint.
  6. Following the resident’s complaint on 19 February 2025, the landlord took a number of steps in line with its ASB policy. On 27 February 2025, it completed a vulnerability risk assessment matrix, updated the resident with an action plan and agreed a contact schedule. It also engaged in multi agency working by contacting the resident’s social worker about support requirements and contacted the police to set up a joint meeting on 3 April 2025. It provided a further update to the resident on 6 March 2025 including about the actions it could currently take about the neighbour’s CCTV. The landlord’s final response and records stated it visited the resident on 3 April 2025 and provided an action plan the following day. This was again in line with its ASB policy.
  7. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had risk assessed the resident’s ASB reports prior to 27 February 2025. Its policy says a vulnerability risk assessment matrix will be completed on all high priority cases, and where relevant on standard priority cases. While it was not clear how the landlord had categorised the resident’s earlier reports, it should have completed a risk assessment sooner. The landlord was aware of the household’s vulnerabilities and the resident’s social worker had contacted the landlord in July 2024 about concerns of the impact of the ASB on the welfare of the family. That it did not complete a risk assessment earlier was a failing. Had it done so, it could have identified any support needs sooner.
  8. The landlord contacted the police about the ASB in February 2025 and requested a disclosure. However, there was no evidence of it doing so prior to this. This was despite the resident confirming she had made a number of reports to the police from June 2024 onwards.
  9. In summary, the landlord failed to fully follow its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s reports prior to February 2025. While it was evident that the landlord’s handing of ASB improved after the resident’s complaint, its complaint investigation did not identify any failures. Its response here was poor and did not demonstrate it had fully investigated the resident’s concerns about its handling of her ASB reports. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB. We have ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance for where a landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord raised a repair to a leak and mould in a storage cupboard on 9 July 2024. It completed a damp and mould inspection and mould wash on 12 July 2024. This was in line with its damp and mould policy which says it will assess the property within 20 working days.
  2. The report identified repairs to the roof and extractor fan. The landlord raised a repair to the extractor on 17 July 2024. This was in line with its damp and mould policy which says remedial works identified will be raised within 10 working days of the assessment. It marked this as completed 35 days later. This was outside of the timeframes in its repairs policy of 20 calendar days.
  3. The landlord raised a roofing repair on 14 August 2024, over a month after its inspection. This was not in line with its damp and mould policy. Its records show it raised further repairs to the roof and guttering on 16 October 2024. It completed this on 24 April 2025. This was an overall timeframe of over 9 months from the inspection. While the landlord completed a mould wash in July 2024, there was no evidence that it followed up on this during the 9-month period to determine if a further one was required given the delay to repairs.
  4. Complex repairs and investigations may require additional time for the landlord to complete them. In this case the landlord raised further works and required scaffolding. However, the evidence shows scaffolding was raised on 3 February 2025. The landlord provided no explanation for the delay here.
  5. Its repairs policy at the time did not include a timeframe for complex repairs. Its damp and mould policy says it will be clear with residents on timescales and keep them informed throughout. There was no evidence that the landlord did so. This was a failure to follow its policy and basic good customer service.
  6. The resident told us mould has continued after the repairs. Therefore, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident about this.
  7. In its complaint responses the landlord offered overall compensation for distress and inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities. However, it did not explain or identify how it had failed to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident told this service that she has 3 vulnerable children. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered its vulnerable resident’s policy and any adjustments needed to its service.
  8. The landlord apologised for the delay and impact on the resident of dealing with the complaint issues and offered overall compensation. It is essential for landlords to break down offers of compensation so that a resident can understand to what extent it had acknowledged the impact of each individual failure. In absence of a full breakdown, we were unable to determine what proportion had been attributed to each issue in the complaint.
  9. In summary, the repairs to resolve the damp and mould took over 9 months. The landlord’s communication about the progress of the repairs was poor. It also failed to demonstrate that it had taken the household vulnerabilities into consideration in its response. The compensation offered did not go far enough to put things right for the resident.A further amount of compensation has been ordered in line with our remedies guidance for where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but this was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Pests

  1. On 27 September 2024, the resident reported seeing 3 rats in her kitchen. On the same day, the landlord told the resident it had raised a routine job with its contractors. This was appropriate because the landlord’s pest and repairs policies say it is responsible for rat infestations. The landlord’s records show it raised a job to its contractor on 6 January 2025 and a first visit took place on 10 January 2025. The timeframe of 112 days did not meet the timescales in its repair policy which also sets out how it deals with infestations it is responsible for.
  2. The landlord’s contractor completed 2 further visits on 27 January and 6 February 2025. The contractor recommended proofing work to the landlord on 10 February 2025 and the landlord completed this on 6 March 2025. The contractor’s reports from the visits from 10 January 2025 onwards also recommended proofing. The landlord failed to raise this work sooner.
  3. The landlord raised a pest control job on 24 January 2025 for the communal area. Its contractor completed a programme of baiting between 6 January 2025 and 24 February 2025. The timeframes were within its repairs / pest policy.
  4. The resident told us the rats had returned. The final reports by the pest control contractor did not note any further baiting required or action other than proofing which it competed. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord failed to address the pests at the time of the resident’s complaint.
  5. In summary, the landlord took too long to raise the pest control work. The evidence shows that following this initial delay it completed the work recommended by its pest control contractor. The landlord apologised for the delays and offered compensation for the overall complaint. However, the compensation was not quite enough to account for the delay. The landlord also did not explain the reasons for the delay.

Repairs

  1. It was not clear when the resident first raised issues with the windows. The inspection on 12 July 2024 noted the windows in satisfactory condition. The landlord’s records show it raised a repair to bedroom window frames on 17 January 2025. It completed this on 5 February 2025. It raised a repair on 18 February 2025 for living room windows. The landlord completed this on 10 March 2025 as promised in its final response. Both repairs were completed in line with its repairs policy.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident reported a radiator had come off the wall on 11 February 2025 and was subsequently leaking. The landlord attended multiple times from 13 February 2025 to repair this and fix the heating which the resident said had not been working since 14 February 2025. It provided the resident with temporary heaters which was appropriate.
  3. The landlord’s final response acknowledged repairs to fix the radiator to the wall was still outstanding. Its records show the full repair was not completed until 24 April 2025. The evidence shows the landlord attended an appointment on 14 March 2025 to complete this, but the resident requested a smaller radiator. The further delay was due to the landlord completing a heat loss survey prior to agreeing to this. The landlord did not raise this survey until 16 April 2024. This was over a month after the failed appointment on 14 March 2024. The further delay here was unreasonable.
  4. It was not clear exactly how many days the resident’s property was without heating. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated the radiator was reinstated on 28 February 2025. In her escalation, the resident told the landlord the boiler was fixed on 21 February 2025. The landlord’s complaint response acknowledged the resident was without heating and it offered compensation. It calculated this in line with its compensation calculator for a period of 21 days. It also offered £60 for missed appointments in line with its compensation policy.
  5. In her complaint the resident raised concerns about an injury from the radiator falling and damage caused by the leak. In its complaint responses, the landlord told the resident that claims for damage to belongings and personal injury fell outside of its complaints process. It included information about how to make a claim if the resident felt it was at fault. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
  6. Overall, the landlord failed to fully address the problems with radiator within a reasonable timescale given that this was during the winter period and the household included children. It offered the resident compensation for the time with no heating, for missed appointments, and also for overall distress and inconvenience of the entire complaint. However, this did not account for the further delay to fixing the radiator.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord provided its final response within 22 working days. This was 2 days outside the timeframe in its complaints policy. In line with this policy, the landlord contacted the resident about the delay. In its final response, the landlord apologised and offered £20 compensation which was proportionate.
  2. The evidence shows the resident complained that the landlord had not informed her of previous ASB reports about her neighbour before a mutual exchange. The resident raised this again in her escalation. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to this part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy. This says it will investigate all elements of the complaint. This was also not in line with the Complaint Handling Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. As a result of its failure to do so, this part of the resident’s complaint remains unresolved.
  3. The landlord’s final response states the resident had raised previous complaints about its handling of ASB which it closed. The evidence shows the resident raised a complaint in September 2024 about the landlord’s handling of ASB. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 10 September 2024. The landlord’s internal emails from 24 September 2024 state it cancelled the complaint as raised in error and sent a letter to the resident to confirm this. We have not seen evidence of this letter.
  4. It was not clear from the evidence provided when the other complaint referenced in the landlord’s final response was closed. The landlord’s internal emails from 24 February 2025 stated the resident had requested to make a complaint about data protection and logging ASB issues. There is no evidence of the landlord updating the resident on its decision to close this complaint. It offered the resident £200 compensation for closing both complaints, but it did not fully explain why it closed them.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It acknowledged it had closed 2 complaints in error and that its final response on 4 April 2025 was delayed. It attempted to put things right through its offer of compensation of £220. However, its complaint investigation failed to address all points of the resident’s complaint at both stages. As such it did not fully remedy the resident’s complaint. The compensation offered was not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. ASB.
    2. damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. pests.
    2. repairs.
    3. the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of this report:
    1. apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £1130. This amount includes the £672 offered during the complaints process. It is broken down as:
      1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handing of ASB.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handing of damp and mould.
      3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handing of pests.
      4. £260 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handing of repairs.
      5. £270 for its poor complaint handling.
    3. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Service

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to contact the resident regarding her concerns about ASB reports prior to her mutual exchange and consider if it needs to open a further complaint investigation about this.
  2. The landlord to contact the resident about her reports to us about further damp and mould, pests and a window repair.