London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202503991)

Decision
Case ID	202503991
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The resident has complained about a silverfish infestation which he believes is being caused by underlying damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and silverfish.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord arranged pest control visits which took place within a reasonable timescale. However, this did not resolve the issue.
While the landlord promptly attended to minor mould in the bathroom, it did not appropriately investigate the resident’s concerns about possible underlying damp causing the reoccurring silverish infestations.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy and the Code.

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 20 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould, and silverfish. 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 20 November 2025
3	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. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the property for damp, mould and leaks which may be causing silverfish and produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete any work.	No later than 20 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 December 2024 to 3 February 2025	The landlord raised a repair order for a reoccurring silverfish infestation. This was following previous treatments in 2023 and 2024. Its contractor completed 3 visits to the property in January and February 2025.
12 March 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about ongoing issues with silverfish. He said pest control visits had not resolved the issue and he believed this could be caused by mould and a leak in the building.
24 March 2025	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said its pest control contractor attended and the resident refused further baiting. It provided the details for the resident to rearrange this.
24 March 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he had refused further baiting because this had not previously resolved the issue.
23 April 2025	The landlord issued its final response. This stated: The resident believed the silverfish were caused by damp and mould. Its mould contractor attended on 31 March 2025. The mould did not require a surveyor referral as it was minimal. The resident refused its offer to install a sensor to monitor moisture. It had raised a further appointment for silverfish treatment and asked the resident to provide access. It offered £60 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and brought the complaint to us. He said the landlord was not investigating the underlying cause of the silverfish which he said were in the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom.

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	Handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and silverfish
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s pests policy covers certain infestations, including those where residents have made serious efforts to resolve the issue. While silverfish are not specifically mentioned, their link to damp made it appropriate for the landlord to accept responsibility to treat the infestation.
Although its unclear when the resident first reported silverfish, the landlord’s records show pest control visits were arranged in November 2023, January, May, October, and December 2024. Each time its visits met the 20-working day timeframe in its repairs policy. At the visits leading up to the complaint in January and February 2025, the contractor noted no live silverfish found but each time used bait to treat.
The pest control report from a visit on 3 February 2025 recommended an inspection for any damp and leaking pipes because this was a common cause of silverfish. The landlord failed to act on this recommendation.
On 27 March 2025, the landlord discussed the stage 2 complaint with the resident and said it would instruct a contractor to check for underlying issues. A previous damp and mould report from June 2023 led to it completing repairs around the kitchen sink in July 2023, with no further reports until the resident’s complaint on 12 March 2025. In response, the landlord arranged a visit within the 20-day timeframe set by its damp and mould policy. However, the visit on 31 March 2025 was a mould clean and shield treatment, not a full damp assessment. While minor mould in the bathroom was treated, the contractor did not investigate potential underlying causes of the silverfish infestation or potential leaks.
The mould clean and shield report noted that during the process some paint had come away with the clean on the ceiling. The landlord confirmed at stage 2 that the resident was responsible for painting this. This was in line with its repairs policy which says redecoration is a resident responsibility, and it will make good any surfaces affected by a repair ready for residents to redecorate.
During the 31 March 2025 visit, the resident initially declined the landlord’s offer to install a humidity sensor but later agreed once the landlord explained its purpose. The offer was appropriate, as high humidity can contribute to silverfish and regular monitoring aligns with the damp and mould policy. However, the landlord’s internal emails from the time stated it would only install the sensor if deemed necessary at a future visit. As it had not agreed to a further visit, it missed an opportunity to monitor humidity levels in the property.
Throughout the complaints process, the resident maintained that the silverfish were caused by underlying damp or leaks. The landlord said it could not refer the issue to a surveyor due to minimal visible mould and asked for photos. This was unreasonable, as the resident could not be expected to photograph underlying damp or undetected leaks. Given the persistent silverfish problem since November 2023, the landlord should have arranged a surveyor inspection to investigate further. Its failure to investigate this has caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
To address the complaint, the landlord arranged a further pest control visit on 19 March 2025. It stated the resident had refused further baiting and asked him to provide access for treatment. Records show the resident declined the treatment again on 29 April 2025, believing the issue was due to underlying damp and that previous treatments were ineffective. There is no evidence that the landlord considered any alternative treatment options. The landlord wrote to the resident about access and said the case would be passed to its neighbourhood housing lead for monitoring. However, it’s unclear whether further treatments were carried or how the case has been monitored.
Overall, the landlord carried out pest control visits in line with its repairs policy, but the resident declined access for further treatment after the complaints process. While the landlord arranged treatment and monitoring of the silverfish, it failed to investigate or address potential underlying causes. Although mould in the bathroom was promptly removed, it did not follow the pest control contractor’s recommendation to inspect for damp or leaks. This was unreasonable given the recurring silverfish reports. The £60 compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. It required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord acknowledged both the complaint and the resident’s escalation request within 1 working day. It discussed the complaint with him at both stages and responded within the timescales in its policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide records of the initial reports from the resident about silverfish. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance the landlords ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.

Communication

The landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with him at both stages. It also continued to communicate with him throughout the complaints process about the actions it was taking. This was appropriate.