London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202332218)

Background

1. The resident identified damp and mould issues shortly after moving into the property, following a mutual exchange. She is unhappy that despite the landlord completing repairs, it has not fully resolved the damp and mould issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs
   2. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to carry out repairs in line with its repairs policy timescale and has not demonstrated that the damp and mould issues are resolved, more than 2 years after the resident raised them. While it recognised some failings during its internal complaints processes, it repeatedly failed to follow through with the commitments it made.

Complaint handling

6. While there was a significant delay in the landlord escalating the complaint and sending its stage 2 response, it apologised and offered appropriate compensation in this response.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not considered

7. The resident told the landlord during its internal complaints process that the situation had impacted her mental health. She also later told us and the landlord that her daughter had developed a persistent cough.
8. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. 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 injury and how long it will last. We will consider whether the landlord considered the resident’s circumstances and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.

Damp and mould

9. The landlord’s records show that the previous tenant raised an issue with damp patches in the kitchen. The landlord wrote to that resident in July 2023 after it was unable to gain access to the property to complete an inspection. It has not provided evidence that it carried out an inspection or any work before the resident’s tenancy began on 4 August 2023. It is not appropriate that it cannot demonstrate that it followed up on the previous tenant’s reports before allowing a mutual exchange to proceed.
10. The landlord raised a works order for a mould wash on 7 September 2023 but it is not clear from its records whether it carried this out. It inspected the property on 14 September 2023 and found indications of excessive moisture. It suspected water ingress from the chimney and found broken tiles in the bathroom which could allow have allowed water through.
11. The landlord raised a works order to inspect the chimney stack on 3 October 2023, which it confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response sent that day. It said it would also carry out a CCTV survey of the drainage to rule out rising damp, and its contractor would contact her soon to arrange this. It said it had provisionally booked an appointment for plastering repairs for 5 December 2023. It offered £200 compensation, which was proportionate at this time. However, it failed to set clear timescales for repairs, despite it already being outside its repairs policy 25-day timescale from when it raised the first works order.
12. The resident continued to contact the landlord during October and November 2023 as work had not progressed. On 9 November 2023 it told her it had spoken to a contractor that day and raised a new repair and would be in touch to arrange a further internal inspection. On 12 December 2023 it told her it had chased its roofing contractor but that there was currently a delay and it could not give a timescale. It was not appropriate that it could not provide any substantial update more than 2 months after its stage 1 response.
13. The landlord’s internal communication of 29 January 2024 stated that despite contact from the resident it did not appear to have responded to her or resolved damp issues and it was not clear what was going on. This demonstrates a lack of oversight and robust record keeping from the landlord which was not appropriate. Further internal communication of 26 February 2024 said that scaffolding had been in place since September 2023. It was supposed to have carried out an inspection but the contractor was on leave. It also said it had booked internal plastering work, despite not having resolved the external issue. These actions were not appropriate.
14. On 5 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say a contractor had attended the day before and reiterated the same assessment about the drain that it had made previously. She was unhappy it had made no further progress and scheduled no repairs.
15. The landlord sent its stage 2 response the same day, in which it acknowledged there had been failings. It offered additional compensation of £680 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her and her child. It also offered £200 towards redecorating costs. This offer was proportionate, and in line with our remedies guidance.
16. The landlord said it had raised works orders to carry out drainage repairs and damp treatment to a cupboard. It had inspected the roof on 2 February 2025 and had met with its insurer on 3 April 2024. It did not give any clear timescales within this response for when it would complete the roof work or other repairs, leaving the resident without clear expectations, which was not appropriate.
17. On 11 April 2024 the landlord conducted a CCTV drainage survey and found no fault in the line. It identified that it needed to do remedial work to the concrete around the gully. The landlord’s internal communications of 16 April 2024 referred to an engineer’s report, but we have not seen a copy this. The records state that the engineer recommended the landlord take down the chimney stack and rebuild it due to the size of the crack.
18. The landlord’s internal communications of June and July 2024 state that it had been chasing contractors and not getting anywhere. It also said it needed a party wall agreement, but it is not clear whether it took action to obtain this. The records demonstrate a lack of accountability from the landlord and poor communication with its contractors. It completed work to the concrete around the gully on 26 June 2024, more than 2 months after it raised this, which was not in line with its repairs policy.
19. The resident has told us the landlord eventually resolved the external issues with the chimney stack, but it is not clear from its records when repairs took place. It carried out an internal inspection on 24 October 2024, and it appears it had completed the external repairs by this time. At this inspection the landlord found that it needed to replace the bathroom fan and strip back and replaster the chimney breast. It also found that there were still signs of water ingress in the hallway.
20. The landlord completed work to the hallway and chimney breast on 19 December 2024, outside of its repairs policy timescale. The landlord has told us that it resolved the damp and mould issues at this time. However, the resident has told us there are still outstanding issues in the living room and hallway cupboard. We have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a post-work inspection to ensure it had resolved all damp issues, which would have been appropriate for it to do.
21. The landlord did pay reasonable compensation during its internal complaints process, recognising delays to it raising repairs. However, it failed to recognise that the previous tenant had reported damp issues and that it had not made reasonable efforts to resolve these or make the resident aware of these at the time of the mutual exchange. It did not keep robust repairs records, failed to set clear timeframes for repairs and did not communicate well with either the resident or its contractors. All of these factors led to significant post stage 2 delays in it carrying out repairs.
22. We have made our award of additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right. While it has carried out repairs since its stage 2 response, these took to long and it has not demonstrated that it ensured these repairs effectively resolved the issues.

23. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord sent its stage 1 response 1 working day after the resident raised the complaint (1 October to 3 October 2023) – which was in line with its complaint policy timescale of 10 working days
    2. it missed several requests from the resident to escalate the complaint
    3. it sent its stage 2 response 113 working days after the resident first requested escalation (25 October 2023 to 5 April 2024) – which was not in line with its complaint policy timescale of 20 working days
24. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint following her requests on 25 October and 12 December 2023. It failed to escalate it until we contacted it on 27 March 2024. It was not appropriate that it required our intervention to progress the complaint.
25. The landlord did acknowledge its complaint handling failings in its stage 2 response and apologised for these. Its offer of compensation of £300 as proportionate to its failings and in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

26. The landlord did not keep good records in relation to repairs or its communication with contractors. It blamed communication issues with contractors for delayed repairs, failing to take responsibility for managing this communication. Its communication with the resident was also poor. It did not keep her regularly updated throughout the repairs process, relying instead on her to chase it for updates. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while investigations and repairs are ongoing.
27. Poor record keeping made it hard for the landlord to respond proactively and effectively. It also impacted on its ability to ensure repairs had been completed. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlord may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for staff.