London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202446230)

Decision
Case ID	202446230
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with his wife. Both have health vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of. These include mobility problems and cancer. In 2022 an occupational therapist (OT) assessment identified the need for a level access shower, 2 comfort toilets and a level access threshold to the back garden. When their health and mobility deteriorated further in December 2024 another OT report identified the need for the same adaptations. He also reported a damp and mould problem in the downstairs toilet. When nothing had progressed by April 2025 he raised a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords handing of the resident’s:
   1. Request for adaptations.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for adaptations.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found the landlord:
   1. Did not adequately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. It delayed in giving permission to adapt the bathroom. It delayed in completing OT recommended adaptations. It failed to communicate effectively. Its complaint process did not resolve all aspects of the resident’s substantive complaint. Its initial offer of compensation was not proportionate to the detriment caused. It did not revise its offer of compensation as agreed in its final response.
   2. Did not consider the household vulnerabilities and delayed in completing the required damp works. Its complaint process did not resolve the resident’s substantive complaint. Its initial offer of compensation was not proportionate to the detriment caused. It did not revise its offer of compensation as agreed in its final response.
   3. Did not accept the resident’s complaint until our intervention. Did not follow all of its complaint policy timescales.

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 provided by a member of the executive team. 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 16 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,550 made up as follows: £725 (this includes £225 offered at stage 1) for the likely distress and inconvenience of the delay in progressing the recommended adaptations and failure to complete the toilet adaptations £500 for the likely distress and inconvenience for its failure to complete damp works £250 for the likely distress and inconvenience of its failure to fully consider the household vulnerabilities £75 for its complaint handling failings 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 16 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 and 12 December 2024	The council’s OT told the landlord the resident struggled to access the garden. He needed a level threshold doorway and 2 rails to prevent falls. He could not get a disabled facilities grant for the work. They also submitted a home improvement request to install a walk-in shower. He had secured charitable funding to complete this work.
7 January 2025	The OT sent the landlord a needs assessment and asked them to progress works. These included changes to the backdoor threshold, a raised toilet, grab rails, and anti-slip flooring in the ground-floor cloakroom.
25 March 2025	The resident complained there had been no update on the adaptations requested. He said he had condensation running down the walls of the downstairs toilet. A contractor had told him it was likely an insulation problem. They fitted sensors to monitor but had not returned.
8 May 2025	After our intervention, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it referred the OT request to its aids and adaptations team, then passed it to major works due to complexity. Delays occurred while the surveyor assessed funding and the neighbourhood team provided information but a referral was now in place. After receiving a damp report on 9 January 2025, its contractor attended on 23 January 2025. They found a leaking downpipe and compromised loft insulation. The main cause was cold bridging in the toilet. It raised an order with its healthy homes team, which referred the issues to its surveying team. It acknowledged communication failings and outlined measures to improve repairs. It offered £225 compensation: £100 for distress, £100 for inconvenience, and £25 for time and effort. It agreed to provide a further update to the resident on 14 May 2025.
June 2025	The resident contacted the landlord (exact date unknown) asking to speak to someone. He said he had just been discharged from hospital after major surgery. Both he and his wife had recent falls at home. His fall was in the downstairs toilet. When he fell, he grabbed the door for support, which came off its hinges.
10 and 17 July 2025	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said he was told there would be an 8 to12 week lead time for adaptations and damp works. He reported no contact about the damp works or toilet adaptations, with only 3 weeks left to complete. He said his adaptation request began in December 2024 and had gone on too long.
15 August 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for delays to the adaptations recommended in the OT report. It said budget constraints meant the works were passed to the major aids and adaptations team. It would contact the delivery team lead to confirm a start date and timescales.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. He said both he and his wife had fallen in the property and he felt its handling of the matter was making them ill. He wanted the damp work and adaptations completed urgently.

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	Request for welfare adaptations
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that the landlord’s inaction had a detrimental effect on their health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a claim via the courts. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute 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’ve not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The council’s OT team approached the landlord in September 2022. It listed recommended adaptations for the resident’s disability. There was no evidence that it responded to that contact.
8. The OT team repeated its request in December 2024, but advised the resident had financial assistance to adapt the bathroom himself. The landlord’s 2023 aids and adaptations policy commits to helping residents with disabilities live safely, comfortably, and independently. It took 2 months to approve his request for a level-access shower, comfort toilet, and non-slip bathroom flooring. The reason for this delay is unknown given it was at no financial cost to it. For a vulnerable resident at risk of falls, this delay was unreasonable.
9. In March 2025, the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged delays. It attributed this to funding issues, as the resident was not entitled to a disabled facilities grant. Its policy states adaptations depend on available funding, any associated delays to arrange this are likely to be unavoidable.
10. However, the landlord could have reduced delays with a clearer understanding of the required adaptations. There was confusion over whether these were major or minor works and who should progress them. This was worsened by mistakenly including the shower adaptations in the decision making.
11. To put matters right the landlord agreed a date by which to provide the resident with the timeframe for the works. It also offered compensation of £225. This was for its failings in completing the internal and external adaptations and addressing damp and mould. It was not clear how much the landlord apportioned to each element of the complaint.
12. Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. The household were vulnerable, at risk in their home and the need for these adaptations had been raised 2 years earlier. Its offer was not proportionate to the delays that likely adversely effected the resident
13. The landlord gave timescales for the work on 14 May 2025.Its email referenced “a lead-in time from 1 May 2025 of 8 to12 weeks”. This made the latest completion date for the works the 24 July 2025.
14. In early July 2025, the resident told the landlord his need for an adapted toilet had increased following stomach surgery. The completion date passed without progress on the toilet adaptation.
15. The landlord’s final response acknowledged the further delay. It said this was due to financial constraints and passing the job to major aids and adaptations. Its evidence did not support this. If its stage 1 outcome was to complete works by 24 July 2025, then it is reasonable to assume funding had been secured. Completion of the external adaptations further confirmed this. Despite the resident’s urgent need, it appears it overlooked his toilet adaptations and only revisited the matter when he escalated his complaint.
16. Following the landlord’s final response in August 2025, the resident continued to chase it for updates on the works. It allocated a contractor who made contact in October 2025 and gave an estimated completion date of Christmas 2025. This potentially added a further 4 months since its final response. It did not demonstrate that it considered the household vulnerabilities.
17. The resident’s ground floor toilet is small. To improve his manoeuvrability in the room he requested the new toilet be installed flush to the wall. The contractor said that due to the placement of the soil pipe this could not be done. Therefore, it would be a low-level system toilet like for like.
18. The resident expressed concern he would not get a comfort-height toilet and that in a 6ft x 3ft space, it would remain sticking out in the middle of the room. He said his own plumber confirmed it could be fitted flush to the wall. The contractor’s reply said the OT specification stated a 500mm toilet height. They commented this “was above standard height” but did not confirm it would be fitted. They repeated that the soil pipe dictated the toilet’s position but may review this when work started.
19. Based on these discussions, the resident believed the new toilet would not meet his needs. He told the contractor to cancel the job and hired his own plumber. His downstairs toilet now meets his welfare needs, but at a significant personal financial cost.
20. The resident’s completed work shows his requested style of toilet could be installed with the existing stack pipe. It is concerning that the landlord’s aids and adaptions’ contractors did not appear to understand his need for a higher-level toilet or how it could be fitted.
21. It was also concerning that, when the resident cancelled works that he had waited for, the landlord did not contact him to find out why. It should have discussed his reasons and ensured there were no misunderstandings or issues that could be resolved.
22. In its final response, the landlord said it would consider further compensation but would calculate this after completing its complaint actions. There is no evidence it did this.

Complaint	The handling of the damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

23. The landlord sent its damp contractors to the resident’s home to assess the extent of the damp problem in 13 working days. This met its policy commitment to attend within 20 working days.
24. In its complaint response the landlord said it found a leaking external downpipe, and compromised loft insulation. However, it determined cold bridging in the toilet was the main cause of the problem. Two external elevations were aluminium panels with minimal insulation. It took readings and noted the room was very cold and suggested adding insulation. It also recorded damaged external render and cladding that needed repair.
25. The resident’s wife has lung cancer. Government guidance on damp and mould warns that people with such vulnerabilities face higher health risks from damp and mould. It stresses urgent action for these vulnerable groups.
26. The landlord completed a mould treatment at its inspection on the 23 January 2025. This was appropriate action to reduce the immediate risk. However, the guidance highlights that simply removing surface mould will not prevent the damp and mould from returning. It is important to identify and tackle the underlying causes of damp and mould. Although the report had identified the causes, there was no evidence it acted on it. Its failure to act showed it had not considered the household vulnerabilities. It did not act with the urgency the guidance requires for someone with her health conditions.
27. Communication between the landlord and its contractor in March 2025 recognised delays in progressing work to the downstairs toilet. It highlighted the vulnerabilities and stressed the urgency of a surveyor visit to ensure the room became usable and warm. Despite this, damp works did not progress.
28. The landlord’s final complaint response committed to monitor works until a date was set. Despite this it failed to schedule any action to address damp and mould.
29. The resident said he became frustrated with the wait due to deteriorating health. He instructed his contractor to insulate the toilet while completing the toilet adaptation. The landlord had an obligation to ensure its property was free from hazards such as excess cold, damp and mould, which it failed to do.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

30. The landlord’s complaint handling policy commits to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. If it requires an extension on the time to respond, this should not exceed 20 working days. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
31. It took the intervention of our Service on 30 April 2025, for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. It then issued its stage 1 complaint response within policy timescales. However, it failed to acknowledge the complaint within five working days as its policy requires.
32. The landlord acknowledged the residents stage 2 complaint the following day and responded within 20 working days. This was in line with its complaint policy response times.

Learning

33. The landlord’s process for progressing its minor and major welfare adaptations was problematic. Staff were unclear what constituted a minor or major adaptation and what path the works needed to follow. This resulted in delays, conflicting information and poor communication.
34. The landlord should consider how it sets out any compensation offered and how it explains which complaint point it is attributed to. This will improve clarity and understanding.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. Our investigation did not identify any record keeping issues.

Communication

36. Following its stage 1 investigation the landlord acknowledged that its communication had been poor. Despite commitments to address this, its communication with the resident did not improve.