London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202533005)

Decision
Case ID	202533005
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	5 March 2026

Background

The resident has reported damp and mould in her property since November 2022. The resident lives with her 3 children. Both the resident and her daughter have asthma. The landlord is aware of the household vulnerabilities. The resident complained that the landlord had not dealt with the damp and mould properly and it kept coming back. She was concerned about the impact the damp and mould could have on her daughter’s health.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found the landlord:

Reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs

Appropriately inspected, raised repairs, and complete mould washes in line with its policy. Failed to complete the associated repairs within its repair policy timeframes. While the landlord apologised and offered compensation it did not complete agreed works which remain outstanding at the date of this report.

Complaint handling

Failed to consider compensation as agreed after completion of works at stage 1. Failed to monitor agreed actions. The landlord apologised and made an offer of compensation which was proportionate to the failings identified.

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 manager 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 02 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 made up as follows: £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs 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 02 April 2026
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 and mould and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the damp and mould 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 the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 02 April 2026
5	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the installation of the air bricks is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed	No later than 16 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint on the basis it pays the resident the £100 it offered in its complaint process. If the landlord has not already paid this to the resident, it should ensure it pays it in addition to the compensation set out above.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 September 2024	The resident complained that damp and mould had been ongoing in her property since 2022. The landlord had carried out some works but the damp and mould had returned.
27 September 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint and sent its stage 1 response. It said it had cancelled the job to inspect the roof as the contractor had not attended. It said it had re-raised the repair.
27 September 2024	Following contact from the resident, the landlord said it would assess the compensation when it had completed the repair.
18 September 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because it had not resolved the damp and mould. She also said the landlord had not contacted her about the compensation at stage 1.
30 September 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It accepted it should have dealt with the reports of damp and mould more effectively and sooner. It said it had asked its repair team to prioritise the installation of the air bricks. It apologised and offered £460 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to inspect her daughter’s bedroom due to damp and mould being around the window and complete the outstanding repairs to fit the air bricks.

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 handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The resident told us that both herself and her daughter have asthma. The damp and mould in the property injured them. 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’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident reported damp and mould in her bedrooms on 8 November 2022. The landlord inspected the property the same day, raised works, and gave advice on reducing moisture and improving heating and ventilation. The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy at that time. However, it acted in line with the timeframes in its September 2022 self‑assessment against the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould. That assessment required an inspection within 5 days and repairs raised within 10 days. The landlord completed a mould wash on 17 November 2022, which was reasonable.
The landlord logged a roof inspection with a 20‑working‑day target, meaning it needed to inspect the roof by 6 December 2022. It completed the inspection on 30 January 2023. After accounting for the Christmas closure, this was 34 working days late. Although the landlord blamed poor weather, the delay was unreasonable. The landlord found no faults with the roof tiles. It identified condensation issues that required a damp specialist but failed to refer the case for that assessment.
The landlord’s damp and mould self‑assessment required it to monitor cases for 12 months after a visit. The landlord took no further action until the resident contacted it in November 2023. This was a failing.
The resident reported recurring damp and mould on 15 November 2023. Under the landlord’s May 2023 damp and mould policy, it needed to complete an inspection within 20 working days and raise works within 10 working days after that. It inspected on 22 November 2023 and raised repairs on 4 December 2023. This was in line with its policy.
The inspection confirmed condensation and damp and mould in all upper‑floor rooms. The landlord raised a mould wash, further roof checks, and pointing repairs. Its repair policy required it to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days. Considering the Christmas closure, this meant it should complete them by 9 January 2024. The landlord cancelled the roof repair without attending and failed to update the resident. It completed the pointing repair on 1 March 2024, which was around 2 months late. The delay in these actions represent a failing.
The inspection noted the resident did not open window trickle vents. The landlord gave further advice on heating and ventilation. This was consistent with its policy.
The landlord noted that the main bedroom radiator appeared undersized and might contribute to moisture issues. The landlord recorded this as an observation but did not investigate further.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said its contractor had cancelled the roofing job without attending. It said it had re‑raised the job and would update the resident when it had a date, but it did not do so. The resident chased the update on 28 October 2024. She did not need to raise this issue again. The landlord failed to supervise its contractor and ensure progress, which caused unnecessary delay, and inconvenience time and trouble.
The landlord re‑raised the roof repair on 27 September 2024 and attended on 3 December 2024. It found no roof issues. The overall handling of the roof issue resulted in a 10‑month delay, which represents a failure.
The landlord arranged another inspection for 6 January 2025. We do not know if this went ahead or not. The repair records show it as outstanding and the landlord has not provided a copy of its report. However, on 8 January 2025 it raised new works due by 28 January 2025, including:
a. mould wash
b. new radiator under the bedroom window
c. installation of air bricks
d. overhaul of the bathroom extractor fan
The landlord completed the mould wash on 10 January 2025 and gave further moisture‑management advice. This was in line with its policy.
The landlord marked the radiator job complete on 22 January 2025. On 2 February 2025 it raised another job to replace and relocate the radiator with a larger one, completing it on 19 February 2025. Records do not clarify whether this was a new job or a re‑raised one. The resident later told the landlord the contractor had completed 4 visits for this work, which was due to the contractor not having the right equipment. Although we have not seen evidence of this, contractors should attend jobs with the relevant equipment. Failure to do so can result in unnecessary and avoidable disruption for the resident. The landlord should have investigated this issue in November 2023 and replaced the radiator sooner.
The landlord marked the air‑brick job complete on 10 February 2025 without carrying out the work. The repair remained outstanding after the stage 2 response, so the landlord should not have closed the job.
The landlord did not provide an explanation for the delay in overhauling the bathroom fan, which it completed on 11 June 2025. Even if it required a specialist contractor, the 5-month delay was unreasonable and represents a failure.
In May 2025 the landlord updated its repair timeframes to 20 working days for routine repairs and 40 working days for more complex routine repairs.
On 14 May 2025 the landlord instructed an insulation specialist to inspect the loft. It needed to complete the inspection by 12 June 2025 but instead attended on 11 August 2025. The contractor found insufficient insulation, debris left by previous roof works, and incorrectly laid insulation. It removed the debris and installed new insulation to an acceptable standard. The resident rearranged two appointments at the beginning of June 2025, and the landlord used a specialist contractor. Although this explains some of the delay, it took the landlord a further 9 weeks, on top of its 20-working day target, to complete the work. This was a failing.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 27 May 2025. It has not provided a copy of its inspection report so we do not know what the outcome was. However, this showed it was monitoring the damp and mould, which was reasonable.
On 15 July 2025 the landlord re‑raised the air‑brick works, due by 12 August 2025. It did not complete the work. The landlord explained in the stage 2 response that the quote provided by the contractor was too high. While it was reasonable to seek a cheaper quote, the landlord failed to update the resident until she escalated her complaint in September 2025. This lack of communication represents a failure.
The landlord has known about damp, mould, and condensation in the property since November 2022. The landlord inspected, raise repairs, and completed mould washes in line with its policy. However, there were significant delays in it completing the associated repairs, one of which remained outstanding at the date of this report. The damp and mould affected the resident for years, and the landlord failed to achieve a lasting solution.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord apologised, agreed to complete repairs, and offered £360 compensation, but this did not reflect the full impact. The delays, missed actions, and poor communication affected the resident’s wellbeing and her ability to enjoy her home. The resident also spent time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates and a resolution to her complaint.
Due to these failures, we find maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay £1,000 compensation (an increase of £640) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, and the time and trouble spent. This sum reflects our remedies guidance which says such a sum would be payable where there has been a significant impact on the household. It also reflects the vulnerabilities of the household which meant the delays to resolve the damp and mould and the landlord’s handling of it would have had a more severe effect on them compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities. In this case, the resident and her children had been living in a damp and mouldy property for over 3 years. She had repeatedly expressed concern about the impact on her daughter’s health.
The resident has told us the damp and mould is still around one of the bedroom windows and the air bricks are outstanding. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to complete another damp and mould inspection and to complete the outstanding repairs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
1. The landlord had a published complaint policy which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales at each stage.
2. The landlord acknowledged and responded to stage 1 of the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Code.
3. Following the stage 1 response the landlord told the resident it would consider compensation when it had completed the repair to the roof. The landlord inspected the roof on 3 December 2024 and found it did not need to complete any repairs. It should have assessed the compensation at this point. This did not happen.
4. It also failed to monitor the repair actions from its stage 1 complaint response. This was not inline with its policy or the Code.
5. The landlord acknowledged and responded to stage 2 of the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Code.
6. The landlord explained that its complaint policy did not cover damage to the resident’s belongings. It correctly signposted the resident to its insurance team.
7. The landlord appropriately said it had briefed senior managers about the resident’s complaint to see what learning it could take from it.
The landlord attempted to put things right by offering £100 compensation for the resident’s time and effort in getting the complaint resolved. Given the landlord’s failings, the apology made, and the compensation offered, this would lead to a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord should have a mechanism within its complaint handling process to ensure follow up works and actions are monitored and completed.
The landlord demonstrated a lack of oversight of its contractors in relation to the roof repair, which contributed to the failings identified.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Overall, the landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory, save for the few items of missing information we have referred to in this report.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was poor in this case. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates in relation to the repairs and her complaint. The landlord should ensure it has a strategy in place for keeping residents informed.