London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202414100)

Decision
Case ID	202414100
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in 2-bedroom first-floor flat with his partner, and they were expecting the arrival of their first child at the time of the issuing his complaint. In January 2024, the resident reported the damp and mould, and the landlord took over 9 months to address the issues raised. The resident completed the landlord’s internal complaints process in November 2024 and remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses. He brought his complaint to this Service in April 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould and the associated repairs.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and the associated repairs.
We have found Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The damp and mould

The landlord identified structural contributors to the damp and mould in March 2024, but it failed to affect the necessary remedial works within a reasonable timeframe. It failed to take sufficient steps to address the root cause of the damp, despite evidence of established mould growth within the resident’s primary bedroom.

The complaint

The landlord did not conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation at stage 1 and failed to acknowledge or appropriately respond to the resident’s escalation request. The complaint process was protracted, lacked clear oversight, and required the resident to repeatedly chase. It also failed to provide a clear plan to bring matters to a timely and lasting resolution. Although the landlord identified generalised learning, it did not set out what steps it intended to take to prevent similar failings in the future.

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 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay £1255 directly to the resident, this sum includes the £480 it previously offered, for the distress and inconvenience resulting from its the handling of the damp and mould and associated repairs. The landlord must pay £150, this sum includes the £100 it previously offered, for the distress and inconvenience resulting from its complaint handling failings. The landlord must provide evidence it has made these payments directly to the resident.	No later than 27 March 2026
3	The resident has indicated that that although the mould has not worsened in recent months, the mould is still present around the bedroom windows. The landlord should revisit the property and identify any further remedial work to eliminate the residual mould growth. If works are required, the landlord should provide this Service with a schedule of works and indicate the timeframe in which it expects to complete these works.	No later than 27 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 April 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He said that: He has reported numerous issues on the date his tenancy started on 23 January, it is now 23 April and numerous issues remain outstanding. This is all despite contractors coming out on a number of occasions. Contractors have been out to address the issues with the windows, but “both bedroom window complexes require replacement.” The wood is “rotten through”, the “double glazing has blown” and the “locking complexes do not engage”. He can see “daylight” through the closed door, and these are all “safety issues.” The landlord needs to clear the drainpipe which is causing the water ingress and subsequent damp. The “bedroom has persistent damp and mould” which he has reported to the landlord on “multiple occasions.” His partner is pregnant and this “poses a huge health risk.” He would like the landlord to address the matters as soon as possible, with a set timescale for completion of works, with “ample time for all works to be completed” prior to the baby’s arrival. He would also like an apology and an explanation for the length of time it has taken the landlord to provide a lasting resolution to the issues raised. Additionally, he would also like compensation for the distress of sleeping in a “mould-infested room” and not having full use of all the bedrooms within the property.
25 April 2024	The landlord provided a complaint acknowledgement email and a response, and it said: It tried calling the resident on 25 April 2024 but was unable to get through to him. It is writing to acknowledge the complaint and to provide a decision, to inform the resident on what will happen next. It apologised for the resident’s dissatisfaction and for experiencing ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property. The damp and mould specialist recently attended to carry out an internal inspection, and they work with the landlord’s Healthy Homes team to raise any follow-on works. Regarding the dishwasher repair, it confirmed there was an appointment booked for 27 April. The outstanding repair was relating to the wooden windows/doors and trickle vents, and it had contacted the appropriate team to “address further.” It is committed to resolving the issues raised and thanked the resident for his cooperation and patience. It offered £150 compensation and this was broken down into the following: – £50 for distress. – £50 for inconvenience. – £50 for time and effort.
26 April 2024	The resident escalated his complaint and said: He did not receive a call from the landlord and his complaint had “not yet been addressed”. He would like an estimated timeline of all the works due for completion, including the replacement of doors/window complexes for both bedrooms, the blocked downpipe and mould treatment. He would like an outline of the how long the re-fitting process will take. The contractor scheduled to attended and draw up a quote did not attend the appointment, and he has had to “take leave” from work on 5 separate occasions due to contractors appointments. He and his partner work out of the area and so he needed confirmation on whether the landlord could attend to give the contractors access for future appointments. The contractors said that they would attend an appointment on 11 May, but they have not provided an estimation of completion of works. The unresolved issues present a persistent and “serious health hazard to his pregnant partner and unborn child.” He appreciates the gesture of the compensation, but the level offered is “not acceptable.”
10 July 2024	The resident contacted the landlord again to “formally” request an escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord responded on this day and captured the points the resident raised on 26 April for stage 2 investigation. It also said that the reason it had not responded was due to the caseworker leaving the business and it was unable to establish further reasons for the delay.
28 October 2024	The landlord provided an escalation acknowledgement, and it said: It apologised for the experience that the resident has had. The complaint had been re-assigned, and it would provide a response within 5 working days. It would also like to discuss the complaint, so requested confirmation of the best time and date to call the resident.
4 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response, and it summarised the resident’s outstanding concerns as: – The landlord did not follow the escalation process. – The timeline of works. – Rent refund/reduction. – The roof and downpipe are distinct issues and are in separate locations on the property. It was unable to repair the downpipe with the current scaffolding. – Paint applied to the mould-affected areas is already flaking off. – There has been a lack of communication from the landlord. It also added the Healthy Homes report noted several observations: The main cause of the moisture was condensation; it needed to repair the trickle vents to improve ventilation. It needed to repair the lock mechanisms and replace the silicone on the balcony doors. The removal of the visible plant growth blocking the hopper and the down pipe. Repairs to the second bedroom balcony and replacement of the warped wood. To re-situate the thermostat to a cooler part of the property. The resident to use the extractor fan to reduce excess moisture. Mould treatment for both bedrooms. It went on to confirm: It had replaced the affected windows and doors and apologised for the lack of communication and clear timescales in the lead up to completion. The parts were subject to manufacturing and installation scheduling. It understood and could appreciate there was mould present in the property, but it did not constitute a “loss of space” (loss of full enjoyment of the property) as the room was still usable even with the damp and mould in the windows. The managing landlord also agreed that there was “no clear evidence of any room being unusable.” The only outstanding issue is the blocked down pipe as “it still needs clearing.” It offered details of the landlord’s insurance policy and said that if any of the residents belongings were damaged by the mould, then they should look to claim through their personal contents insurance in the first instance. But if they did not have contents insurance then they could submit a claim through the landlord’s insurers. It “fully appreciates” the “tangible stress” the resident experienced in the final months of the pregnancy and scheduling appointments “given the proximity to the child’s delivery date.” It recalculated the offer of compensation, and it was broken down as follows: – £320 for distress. – £160 for inconvenience. – £100 for complaint handling and escalation delay. It also recognised that the complaint “was not escalated when the resident originally requested it to be” and “it has been noted for an internal area of improvement.”
Referral to the Ombudsman	In July 2024, the resident brought his complaint to this Service and he said: He has experienced multiple issues, such as leaks from blocked pipes, boiler issues and damp and mould. The blocked downpipe and the boiler issues remain outstanding. The blocked downpipe caused water ingress and subsequent damp and mould in the bedroom windows. It also caused the wood to warp and damaged the glazing on the windowpane. All of the issues mean that the resident cannot use the room. The landlord needs to replace the affected doors, windows, broken handles and add suitable double glazing for insulation and security. To also clear the blocked downpipe and repair or replace the boiler. The landlord has failed to provide timescales on outstanding works and has not maintained contact with the resident. His partner is pregnant and the due date is the first week of September and they have been unable to prepare their home for the newborn baby, which the landlord was aware of since March 2024.

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 landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, and associated repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated and why

When the resident contacted this Service, they told us that they were experiencing issues with the boiler and that it was consistently dropping pressure. The evidence shows that the landlord had not investigated this aspect within its complaint framework. The landlord should work towards remedying this if it remains an ongoing matter and or support the resident to raise this as a separate complaint.

What we have investigated

Our Spotlight report makes clear that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. The report states that landlord should focus on identifying and addressing the underlying cause of damp rather than treating the symptoms, should avoid attributing damp solely to lifestyle without clear evidence, and should act promptly where vulnerability is present.
While the landlord arranged a mould wash treatment, in March 2024 it identified that the hopper was blocked and the windows required repair. However, it did not complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. From the resident first reporting mould in February, it was not until October that the landlord confirmed it had completed most of the associated repairs. Within its stage 2 response, it advised that clearing the downpipe remained the only outstanding job. The resident told this Service that the landlord did not complete this until April 2025. The delay in resolving these structural defects meant that the landlord did not address the root cause of the damp promptly.
At stage 2 the landlord offered £480 for distress and inconvenience. This Service does not consider this amount to fully reflect the prolonged delay in resolving the external fabric defects and the combined impact of security concerns, reduced insulation, and damp and mould. This is particularly so given the landlord’s knowledge of the pregnancy.
We have carefully considered the photographic evidence provided. The images show visible mould growth and staining concentrated around the main bedroom window frame and sill, with darkened areas consistent with established mould colonisation rather than minor surface condensation. The photographs also show deterioration to the timber frame and visible gaps within the window structure. This evidence demonstrates the presence of damp and mould within the resident’s primary sleeping area.
The resident also reported a repair to the dishwasher in February 2024, which was completed on 13 May 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within an average of 25 calendar days, and its response exceeded this timeframe. However, as this concerned a non-essential appliance, this would not have caused the resident sufficient detriment beyond inconvenience. Therefore, this Service does not make a separate finding in relation to this issue. But the delay is illustrative of an overall pattern of poor repair management and achievement f reasonable standards in this case.
Taking the above into account, this Service finds Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the associated repairs. The landlord identified the structural contributors to the damp in March 2024 but did not resolve them within a reasonable timeframe. As a result, the household was exposed to prolonged damp and mould within the primary sleeping area, requiring multiple inspections and works. This caused distress, inconvenience and a loss of full enjoyment beyond what would ordinarily be expected. An order has therefore been made in respect of this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Code requires landlords to carry out a fair and thorough investigation before issuing a response. The landlord issued its stage 1 acknowledgement and response on 25 April 2024. However, the response did not address all elements of the complaint. In particular, it did not comment on the blocked downpipe, the impact within the bedroom, they delay following the identification of structural contributors.
Some 2 days later the resident contacted the landlord and said, “my complaint has not yet been addressed in number of areas.” The landlord did not contact the resident again until 3 months later when the resident formally made an escalation request on 10 July 2024, at which point it told the resident that the person dealing with the complaint had left the business.
The complaint process took a total of 137 working days to complete. During this period the resident was required to chase the landlord for updates on at least 8 occasions. An effective complaints system should provide timely resolution and appropriate redress for acknowledged failings. In this case, the landlord’s complaint handling did not do this. The delays and lack of oversight resulted in missed opportunities to bring an early end to the distress and inconvenience arising from the repair failings and did not provide adequate redress for those adverse impacts.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that “the complaint was not escalated when the resident originally requested it to be” and that this had “been noted for an internal area of improvement.” The response did not set out any specific actions to prevent similar failings in the future, nor did it address the poor and inconsistent communication outside of the complaints process.
Given the above, this Service finds Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In addition to the £100 offered at stage 2, the landlord should pay a further £50 to reflect the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the failures set out above.

Learning

This investigation highlights the importance of prioritising structural defects contributing to damp and mould, particularly where vulnerability is known.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

No issues identified.

Communication

The landlord should ensure that residents are provided with clear timescales and regular updates when it schedules major works and when these works require specialist access or scaffolding.
In this case, there were significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord may wish to consider these case factors and review the likely improvement opportunities the insights this case offers to its service delivery and customer feedback services.