London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202446654)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446654

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. application to downsize with medical consideration.
    2. reports of:
      1. a rodent infestation.
      2. a leak in the kitchen.
      3. damp and mould.
      4. a faulty alarm.
  2. This report has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom, ground floor flat that the landlord, which is a housing association owns and manages. The landlord let the property to the resident under an assured tenancy agreement in 2008. The landlord records that the resident is vulnerable and has physical disabilities.
  2. On 23 August 2024 the resident made an application to move to a smaller property on medical grounds. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint (Complaint A) on 23 November 2024 about a communal alarm situated behind her disabled-adapted bedroom wall. She stated that it had been sounding continuously throughout the weekend and forcing her to sleep elsewhere. She wrote separately to the landlord on the same day to report that mould had appeared on her bedroom ceiling.
  3. On 7 December 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to report that she had seen a rat in her bathroom.
  4. On 17 February 2025 the resident raised a complaint about the ongoing delay in providing her with the outcome of her medical assessment (Complaint B). She also reported a leak coming through her kitchen ceiling. On 18 February 2025, the resident complained again about the faulty alarm and requested compensation for the distress it caused by “blaring 24/7” in her home “for the past 6 days”.
  5. The landlord acknowledged Complaints A and B on 20 February 2025. It issued a stage 1 response to Complaint A on the same day, which it upheld. It apologised for the disturbance caused and said it had arranged for its contractor to attend in the next day or 2 to silence the alarm. The landlord offered her £140 compensation for its failure to recognise the impact on her due to her vulnerabilities.
  6. On 17 March 2025 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint B. It apologised for its failure to respond to some of her queries in line with its service level agreement and offered her £100 compensation in recognition of this. It confirmed it:
    1. had approved her request for rehousing on 6 September 2024.
    2. was in the process of assessing her medical need for a ground floor property.
    3. was seeking an update from its independent medical assessor, which it anticipated it would receive within the following 2 weeks.
  7. On 7 May 2025 the resident contacted the Ombudsman to say she had tried to log several complaints but had not received a response. She raised concerns about her rehousing application, a pest infestation, leaks, recurring damp and mould and the faulty alarm system. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on the same day and told it to provide the resident with a complaint response (Complaint C) to the above mentioned issues by 29 May 2025.
  8. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response to Complaint C on 8 May 2025. It did not uphold her complaint because:
    1. it had temporarily closed its housing transfer list in 2021 and could not advise how long it would take it to rehouse her. It said it would contact her within 8 to 12 weeks with an update on her medical assessment.
    2. its pest contractor had attended 3 times in March and April 2025 and laid bait. It found no signs of rodent activity within the property.
    3. it had repaired the leak from the kitchen ceiling, which was caused by the neighbour’s washing machine.
    4. it had carried out a mould wash on 24 April 2025 following an inspection in March 2025. It had sought to repair the broken ventilation system but the resident had “refused” this due to the extent of the works that were needed.
    5. it had “resolved” the faulty alarm on 20 February 2025 and had offered her compensation for the disturbance this had caused.
    6. it had sent her stage 1 responses about the alarm and medical assessment by email on 20 February and 17 March 2025.
  9. On 8 May 2025 the resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint C. It acknowledged this on 12 May 2025 and sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 13 June 2025. The landlord did not uphold her complaint and agreed with the findings of its previous response.
  10. The resident asked the Ombudsman on 17 June 2025 to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had still not completed her medical assessment and had not resolved the rodent infestation. She added that damp and mould was a recurring problem and would “likely return in winter”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident said that the faulty communal alarm had been disturbing her for 17 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords within 12 months of when they were aware of the issue. This is because, over time, evidence may be unavailable. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, we have used our discretion to focus on the period from 23 November 2024. The records indicate that this was the beginning of the recent events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint about the alarm fault.
  3. The resident has previously had a case determined by us, regarding the landlord’s handling of rodent infestations, leaks and repairs to the central heating system and bathroom extractor fan (202310740). The Ombudsman has therefore not reinvestigated matters that have already been covered in its previous determination. However, we have considered the new issues the resident has complained about, and that have completed the landlord’s complaints process.
  4. The resident raised an additional concern relating to an issue that did not from part of the formal complaint referred to us for consideration This was about delays in adapting her wet room following Occupational Therapist recommendations. This is not something we can investigate at this stage. In the interest of fairness, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this issue resolved. She may approach the Ombudsman once she has received the landlord’s stage 2 responses, and if she remains dissatisfied.

Application to downsize with medical consideration

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy sets out the criteria under which residents are eligible to apply for a housing transfer. These include situations where:
    1. an original household member cannot access parts of their home due to a medical condition that cannot/will not be improved or the home cannot be adapted.
    2. a resident wishes to downsize to a smaller property.
  2. The landlord has a rehousing standard operating procedure. This states that, if the resident has medical requirements, the landlord will ask the resident to obtain the necessary evidence to support a referral to its independent medical advisor. The resident will need to complete a medical assessment form, and supporting information in relation to their medical condition which links to their housing circumstances.
  3. In August 2024the resident made a request to downsize. This was approved on 5 September 2024 and she was placed on the landlord’s downsizing waiting list. She also submitted a medical assessment form to be given medical consideration.
  4. The landlord acted appropriately by managing her expectations at an early stage. It told her on 23 September 2024 that if it accepted her request, the timescale for a move with medical consideration was around 2 years. This would have helped explain the lengthy waiting time. It correctly gave the resident details on the various options she could explore such as mutual exchange. This demonstrates it was making reasonable efforts to be transparent with her.
  5. The evidence shows the landlord received the resident’s application for medical consideration, and supporting evidence on 27 August 2024. Despite her chasing it repeatedly for an update between September 2024 and May 2025, the landlord did not provide her with a decision. The application remained outstanding when the landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint C on 13 June 2025.
  6. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to complete its medical assessment for over 10 months. Furthermore. there is no indication it had chased the independent medical assessor for a response. It is evident from the resident’s correspondence that the excessive delay in completing its assessment caused her significant distress and inconvenience.
  7. Neither the allocations and lettings policy, nor the rehousing standard operating procedure, specify a timescale by which the landlord is expected to complete the medical assessment. However, it told the resident on 5 November 2024, 18 December 2024 and 17 January 2025 that it would take up to 12 weeks to complete the medical assessment. It had repeatedly failed to do so. The landlord’s communication was misleading, and this gave the resident false hope about how long her assessment would take to complete.
  8. On 18 December 2024 the landlord advised the resident that her medical application did not include sufficient supporting evidence. This was only after she had prompted it for an update. We accept that during the course of an assessment, the assessor may require additional documentation. However, it is unclear why it took the landlord nearly 4 months to tell the resident it needed more medical information from her.
  9. The evidence suggests that the landlord had asked the resident on a number of occasions for information she had already provided, and that she had to resend it 4 times in total. It was not until 17 January 2025, 5 months after submitting her application, that the landlord confirmed it had sent the documents to its independent medical assessor. The evidence suggests the landlord failed to properly keep track of the resident’s application, or communicate to her about it. This was a failure in the landlord’s processing and retaining of the resident’s medical data, which caused her significant and unnecessary inconvenience.
  10. In its stage 1 response to Complaint B, the landlord acknowledged it had failed to follow up on some of the resident’s queries in line with its service level agreement. It offered her £100 compensation for those failings, which was appropriate.
  11. However, it did not acknowledge that its medical assessment process had been excessively delayed, or explain why it had taken so long to complete the assessment. It also told the resident in its response that it would give her an update within 2 weeks. There is no evidence it did so. Furthermore, it did not seek to offer any redress for any distress and inconvenience caused by the delay and its misleading communication. For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay the resident suitable redress.

A rodent infestation

  1. The landlord’s pest policy states that it will deal with pest problems where the resident is vulnerable. It also states that, where access holes are identified, these should be blocked. The landlord’s repairs policy covers routine/reactive repairs and pest control. It will aim to complete routine day to day repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
  2. On 7 and 9 December 2024 the resident reported that she had seen a rat in her bathroom, and near her stack pipe. The evidence shows the landlord appropriately considered her vulnerabilities by agreeing to deal with the issue. The resident confirmed in correspondence with the landlord that the contractor had attended 10 days later, on 17 December 2024 to set traps.
  3. The resident reported a further sighting of rodent activity in the “stack pipe area” on 6 March 2025. The pest contractor attended on 11 March 2025, found mouse droppings and laid bait in the kitchen, bathroom and living room. Following further attendances on 31 March 2025, 9 and 28 April 2025, the contractor found no further evidence of active infestation. On 6 June 2025, at the resident’s request, the contractor fitted mesh to seal possible entry points. Given repeated reports of rodent activity, the landlord could have considered arranging for proofing works to be carried out at an earlier stage.
  4. However, the evidence shows the landlord correctly followed its pests and repairs policies and attended to the resident’s reports of rodents in a timely manner. Furthermore, it acted reasonably in installing mesh at the resident’s request on 6 June 2025, despite there being no evidence of rodent activity following it laying bait on 11 March 2025. There was therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.

A leak in the kitchen

  1. The landlord has internal guidance on the handling of emergency and critical repairs. This provides examples of critical repairs, which includes a risk of harm to a person or the property if, for example, there is a leak that can cause damage to a property over time. It instructs its staff to raise critical repairs “on a 20 day order”.
  2. On 17 February 2025 the resident reported that she had discovered a leak in her kitchen, which was coming through the ceiling. There is no evidence of significant water ingress. The landlord’s records show that it attended on 27 February 2025 to fix the leak, which it said was caused by the neighbour’s washing machine. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 8 May 2025 that there were no current leaks in the property.
  3. The evidence shows the landlord completed the repair within 10 days. This was in line with its timescale of carrying out critical repairs within 20 days. There was therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak in her kitchen.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out a number of interventions it takes to tackle damp and mould. These include:
    1. carrying out mould washes where appropriate.
    2. installation and/or upgrading of fans to improve ventilation.
    3. undertaking repairs in accordance with its repairs policy.
  2. On 23 November 2024 the resident told the landlord that, although it was “currently under control” mould had appeared on her bedroom ceiling. On 17 December 2024, she raised further concerns about “persistent mould and dampness” which were aggravating her health issues. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 19 March 2025. This was 16 weeks after the resident first reported mould. It then carried out a mould wash 5 weeks following the inspection. The reason for the landlord’s slow response is unclear.
  3. However, the excessive delay in taking action to address the mould was a failing. It was also a departure from its obligations as set out in its damp and mould policy. The policy states that, following a report of mould, an assessment of the property will be agreed at a mutually convenient time within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem. Any remedial works identified will be recorded and raised to our internal or external maintenance teams within 10 working days of the assessment. The delay was also a departure from the repairs policy, which requires landlords to undertake routine repairs within 25 calendar days.
  4. The inspection on 19 March 2025 identified the broken ventilation system as the cause of recurring damp and mould. The bathroom did not have a window and there was no ventilation, which caused reoccurrence of mould. The landlord told the resident on 8 May 2025 that it had arranged for contractors to carry out a pre-inspection of the ventilation system. However, the records show the resident declined the appointment as she did not want the works to go ahead. Records show that she did not want to move to temporary accommodation or stay in the property while repairs were carried out.
  5. In summary, the landlord inspected the property for damp and mould, and carried out a mould wash. However, the delay in its response was excessive and not in accordance with the repairs policy. For this reason we have made a finding of maladministration and ordered compensation. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and her wish for the landlord not to carry out the necessary  works we have also made a recommendation for it to contact her to discuss finding a way forward.

A faulty alarm

  1. The tenancy agreement sets out the resident’s right to the undisturbed use, peaceful occupation and enjoyment of her home. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is able to adjust its service standards where a delay would put the resident at risk because of their condition.
  2. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  3. On 22 November 2024 the resident reported that an alarm in the lobby of the communal area had been sounding “all day” and was “severely” affecting her health. She stated that it was situated behind her disabled-adapted bedroom and would go off 4 to 6 times a week and last for hours. This meant that whenever it was activated she was “forced” to sleep on her sofa. She wrote to the landlord again on 28 November 2024 to say that both the caretaker and Environmental Health had reported the issue to it. However, despite engineers saying they would attend, it took 3 days to silence the alarm.
  4. The resident made further reports of the alarm sounding on 26 January 2025, 11 February 2025, 18 February 2025 and 14 March 2025. The evidence shows that the landlord serviced the alarm on 25 November 2024, which was appropriate. The contractor reported that it had “found no major faults”. Engineers attended on 3 further occasions between January and March 2025 where they were only able to partly repair the fault. The evidence shows that, on 6 March 2025, engineers had “successfully stopped the buzzing sound” that was disturbing the resident.
  5. It is unclear why it had taken the landlord around 3 months to carry out a permanent repair, and stop the fault from reoccurring. The records show that the landlord required specialist engineers who were familiar with that specific alarm system to attend.
  6. Given the ongoing distress and inconvenience the noise was causing her, there is no evidence the landlord had considered interim solutions. Furthermore, there is no indication it tried to prioritise the repair. Instead she was left to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates, which caused her avoidable inconvenience. We note there is internal correspondence that suggests the alarm system was no longer needed, and questioning why it had not been removed. The landlord has not provided any maintenance logs. We are therefore unable to establish. How often it had been inspected, and why the landlord had not flagged up the need for the alarm’s removal prior to servicing it in November 2024.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  8. In its stage 1 response, issued on 20 February 2025, the landlord acknowledged it had not responded to the resident’s reports in a timely manner. It apologised for the impact the fault had had on her, given her vulnerabilities. It also offered her £140 compensation in recognition of this.
  9. We note the landlord’s efforts to put things right. However, the landlord has not sufficiently demonstrated that the delay was unavoidable. We therefore do not feel the level of redress it offered was proportionate to the detriment caused by the landlord’s delay in resolving the recurring fault, especially considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and l ordered the landlord to pay further compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s customer care and complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. This states that it will:
    1. acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days.
    2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
    3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that, any extension to the above timescales must be no more than 10 (stage 1) or 20 (stage 2) working days without good reason. The landlord must clearly explain the reason for the delay to the resident, and provide them with the contact details of the Ombudsman.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to record or acknowledge Complaint A (alarm) when the resident first raised it on 23 November 2024. It was not until 58 working days later when the resident raised the complaint again on 18 February 2025 that the landlord acknowledged it, and sent a response 2 days later. This was a significant departure from its complaints policy and caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience of having to chase the landlord for a response.
  4. Although the landlord acknowledged Complaint B (medical assessment) within 3 working days, it took 20 working days for it to issue its stage 1 complaint. However, it acted appropriately by sending a holding reply to the resident on 5 March 2025. This explained the reason for the delay and provided a date by which it would issue a response. It also correctly responded by that date.
  5. The evidence suggests that the resident did not receive the stage 1 responses to either Complaint A or B, despite the landlord emailing them to her. It is unclear why this was the case, and whether this was due to a technical issue. It is accepted that issues with residents receiving complaint responses due to failures in postal or email delivery systems are out of the landlord’s control.
  6. However, when the Ombudsman contacted it on 7 May 2025 and instructed it to respond to several concerns the resident had raised, the landlord ought to have resent its previous stage 1 responses. This would have given the resident the opportunity to escalate the complaints about the faulty alarm and medical assessment at that stage. We acknowledge that the resident had raised several new issues with the Ombudsman, and the landlord could have dealt with those separately as a new stage 1 complaint.
  7. In opening a new stage 1 complaint for all the concerns the resident raised, including the previously investigated ones, the landlord unnecessarily lengthened the complaints process for the resident. The landlord’s final response did not add anything further to its previous response and simply repeated what it had previously said. Furthermore, it did not reiterate the offers of compensation it had previously made, which would have caused some confusion about whether it had withdrawn them. This was a failing.
  8. The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. In its stage 1 response to Complaint B, and responses to Complaint C, the landlord did not provide any explanation for why the medical assessment had not been completed. This was despite repeated assurances that the process would take up to 12 weeks. This demonstrates that the landlord did not make reasonable efforts to investigate and respond to this aspect of the complaint.
  9. The Code also requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not do this. In its stage 1 response to Complaint B, it told the resident that it was seeking an update from the independent medical advisor and anticipated a response within 2 weeks. It said it would contact the resident once it had received the outcome of the application. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with any updates.
  10. In its stage 1 and 2 responses to Complaint C dated 8 May and 13 June 2025, the landlord stated that the faulty alarm had been “resolved” on 20 February 2025. This was incorrect. The evidence shows that the fault was fixed on 6 March 2025 and continued up to that date. This demonstrates poor record keeping and an insufficiently thorough investigation.
  11. In its stage 1 response to Complaint A, the landlord offered the resident £20 in recognition of its delayed response, and her time and trouble. There are no further acknowledgements of poor complaint handling in its other responses. In view of the failings we have identified, we have made a finding of maladministration and will order the landlord to pay further redress to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to downsize with medical consideration.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the kitchen.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty alarm.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of receiving this report, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident in line with our guidance for making apologies. The apology should be made in writing and by a senior member of staff.
    2. pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £890, which is calculated as:
      1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the resident’s application for medical consideration.
      2. £200 in recognition of the delay in responding to the resident’s reports of mould in her property.
      3. £240 in recognition of the impact on the resident due to the landlord’s delay in repairing the faulty alarm. This replaces the previous offer of £140 it made in its response to Complaint A.
      4. £100 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling, and the inconvenience this caused to the resident.
      5. £100 it had offered in its response to Complaint B for not answering queries in line with its service level agreement.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord contact the resident to discuss progressing the necessary repairs to the broken ventilation system. If no agreement can be reached as to a way forward we recommend that the landlord write to the resident setting out what further action it will take to progress the repair.