London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202500770)

Decision
Case ID	202500770
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat with his 92-year-old mother. They both have health problems which the landlord is aware of. In 2023 he consulted a solicitor about his repair issues and commenced the disrepair pre-action protocol. He complained that it had not fully completed the works agreed from this and the damp and mould was ongoing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found the landlord:
   1. Did notdemonstratethat it fully investigated the complaint. It did not act in accordance with its damp and mould policy. It failed to complete the actions agreed in its complaint responses. It demonstrated no learning from the complaint. While it recognised some failings and attempted to put things right it did not consider the detriment to the resident.
   2. The landlord delayed unreasonably in escalating the resident’s complaint. However, it recognised this failing, apologised and made a proportionate offer of compensation.

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 15 December 2025
2	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date.   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. 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. It should also consider whether the temporary provision of a dehumidifier would provide any benefit in alleviating the damp and mould.	No later than 15 December 2025
3	Compensation Order   The landlord must pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to address the damp and mould.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 December 2025

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord Contacts the resident to ensure their vulnerability information is up to date Assists the resident with an insurance claim for the damage to his belongings.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 May 2023	The resident and landlord agreed a settlement under the pre-action protocol for housing. This included it agreeing to complete the works set out in his solicitor’s inspection report within 120 days and a financial settlement.
12 November 2024	The resident complained that the landlord had not resolved the damp and mould. It had not completed works to the skirting board and an “installation” at the base of the property to prevent damp and cold. He reported the damp had damaged his mattress.
18 November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the residents complaint. It explained that claims for damage to personal belongings fell outside of its complaints process. It advised him to make a claim via his contents insurance or make a claim to its insurance team. It provided the details on how to do this.
26 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it had liaised with the disrepair officer who was investigating his claims and would be in touch.
27 November 2024	The resident expressed his concern that he had waited over 12 months for it to complete the repairs. The issues had worsened, he was unable to sleep in his bedroom because of the cold and damp and was sleeping in the living room. He said it was a health and safety issue and attached photographs showing a large wet patch on his mattress. He said his new mattress was absorbing moisture, making it unusable. He also reported that operatives had damaged his wardrobe moving it to paint and leaving it unstable. He asked it to provide a dehumidifier.
Between 05 January 2025 and 17 April 2025	The resident wrote 3 times to request that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2. He cited the reasons set out in his email of 27 November 2024, which it had not responded to.
23 April 2025	Following our intervention the landlord accepted and acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate to stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
20 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged its disrepair team had not progressed the complaint. It had committed to contacting the resident urgently to discuss the issues and agree an action plan. It acknowledged his attempts to make contact and that its communication had been poor. It also apologised for its delay in escalating his complaint. It offered a total of £180 compensation credited to his rent account. This comprised £50 for time and effort and failing to progress the actions agreed, £80 for the 4-month delay in escalation and £50 for poor complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. He said he had received no response for 2 months since receiving the landlord’s final stage response telling him it would take urgent action. He and his mother both had health problems and were still living with damp and mould in the flat. He said he was currently sleeping in the living room as a result and it had not compensated him for his damaged belongings.

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	Reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

7. The landlord completed damp and mould works on 26 September 2023 as agreed through the settlement from the pre-action protocol. Between 9 October 2023 and 22 January 2024, the resident contacted it 5 times to report that contractors had not returned to complete all of the painting. He added that the mould was still coming through where treated. We have seen no evidence that it returned his calls or responded to his emails.
8. When the resident complained in November 2024, the landlord’s stage 1 response said its disrepair team would contact him directly. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that it must clearly set out what will happen and by when, but it failed to provide any timeframe. We have seen no evidence that it contacted him in a timely manner. It also failed to demonstrate that it considered the residents vulnerabilities.
9. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it had failed to action the tasks at stage 1. This had delayed resolution by a further 6 months. It acknowledged this was unacceptable, it apologised and offered £100 compensation, £50 for its not following through with the complaint actions and £50 for his time and trouble. The sum offered was in the range our remedies guidance would recommend for a failure which adversely affected the resident.
10. The landlord’s action to put things right was to refer the case again to its disrepair team. As this was a resolution that had previously failed to resolve the issue at stage 1, it was not appropriate and likely added the resident’s frustration. It should have carried out a full investigation into his concerns, and explained how it would resolve the matter.
11. A full investigation would have shown the landlord completed a post inspection of the works in March 2024. Where it identified a missing cover from the wet room waste, which it replaced and some unfinished paintwork to ceilings and skirting board. It had offered a £100 decorating voucher to complete the painting. It noted that the resident’s mother accepted this offer and was happy with the arrangement. This information should have formed part of the complaint response as this shows that it had resolved the unfinished workat the time.
12. Following receipt of the stage 1 response, the resident complained that he was still waiting for an “installation” the landlord had agreed at the base of the property to prevent damp and cold. His solicitor’s surveyor’s report had identified the cause of mould in both bedrooms was the exposed and uninsulated edge of the concrete floor. They recommended fitting a layer of rigid insulation to the topside of the concrete floor and walls, before overlaying with sheathing and plasterboard. Evidence confirms it had completed this work in September 2023.
13. The resident may not have understood what this work entailed. A fuller investigation into the resident’s complaint would have shown what works it had agreed and undertaken. It could have then shared this information with him. This would have resolved this aspect of the complaint and provided reassurance that it had completed the appropriate works.
14. The landlord’s notes from the stage 2 investigation said that a post inspection signed off all the works from the “disrepair case”. It said it had closed the case 9 months earlier and all repairs, even those related to the disrepair case had to be raised again. It failed to share this with the resident in its response.
15. Based on this information the landlord’s action for the disrepair team to contact the resident urgently was not appropriate. It should have treated his reports of damp and mould as a new issue. On receipt of the report, it should have implemented its damp and mould policy, which it failed to do.
16. Furthermore, the landlord’s disrepair team did not contact the resident as agreed. In a recent update from him in October 2025, he confirmed he has heard nothing from it since its response in May 2025. Its continued in-action has caused further detriment to the resident and failed to show it has adequately considered the household vulnerabilities. This also suggests its previous offer of compensation is lacking. It is not proportionate for the extended detriment to the resident and not resolving the substantive complaint.
17. As part of the resolution of his complaint the resident asked the landlord to provide him with a dehumidifier. It did not acknowledge this request, which was a failing. However, it is only appropriate for a landlord to provide a dehumidifier temporarily when there is a need to dry out a property before works.
18. The resident complained his new mattress and a wardrobe had been damaged. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint acknowledgement email advised him it could not consider this matter through its complaints process. It provided the contact details of its insurance team to make a claim through its insurers, which was appropriate.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code)
20. The landlord acknowledged the residents stage 1 complaint the same day and responded within 9 working days. This was in line with its complaint policy response times.
21. The resident asked the landlord escalate his complaint on 5 January 2024. However, it did not acknowledge his request until 17 April 2024, following our intervention. This was 76 working days later, which significantly exceeds its policy response time of 5 working days. It sent its stage 2 response 18 working days later in line with its policy timescale.
22. The landlord acknowledged its delay in escalating the complaint, it apologised and offered the resident £80 compensation, £20 for each months delay. Its offer was reasonable and within the range our awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing that had no permanent impact.

Learning

23. The landlord treated aspects of the complaint as a service request. It need to ensure it undertakes a thorough and meaningful investigation when handling complaints..

Communication

24. The landlord demonstrated learning from the complaint in relation to its communication. It committed to escalating the issue internally to relevant managers to ensure staff provide appropriate and timely communication in the future.