London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202230509)

Decision
Case ID	202230509
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat with her son. The landlord is aware of her son’s asthma and allergies. She complained about damp and mould throughout the property and its delays in resolving this.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling or reports of damp and mould.
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

Reports of damp and mould

The landlord failed to act in line with its policies. While it apologised and offered some redress, it failed to complete repairs or demonstrate any learning.

The complaint

The landlord acknowledged the delays in its handling of the complaint. It apologised and offered redress in line with our remedies guidance.

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 senior member of staff 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 13 March 2026
2	Completing the works The landlord must write to the resident to confirm its final position regarding the damp and mould. It must set out: a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issues (if it is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 13 March 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £770 for distress and inconvenience, including for further delays following its final response. 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 13 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £60 offered in its complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for its complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 April 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of damp and mould. She said there was mould throughout the property including in her son’s bedroom. She was concerned about the impact on her son’s health. She said it had promised a surveyor visit but despite chasing multiple times no one had attended.
30 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said it referred the case to its surveying team in October 2024. It confirmed no inspection had taken place and said it would prioritise arranging one. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience and acknowledged her concerns about her son’s health. It raised a repair for crumbling render and applying a bonding coat to the damaged basement pillars. It offered £140 compensation for the delay and inconvenience.
14 May 2025	The landlord said it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 after the resident chased for a surveyor response.
24 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said it attended on 5 June 2025 and found damp in the basement caused by failed tanking. It arranged for a specialist damp and mould company to conduct a full survey. It said it would raise works once it received the findings. It also raised a repair for external repointing of brickwork. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience. It said the £140 offered at stage 1 had not been processed and increased its compensation offer to £330 comprising: £140 offered at stage 1. £30 for the delay paying the compensation offered at stage 1. £100 for further inconvenience and impact due to vulnerabilities. £60 for complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and asked us to investigate as the issue continued. She said several inspections had taken place, but the root cause remained unresolved. She wanted the outstanding works completed and additional compensation.

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

What we did not investigate

The resident was concerned that the damp and mould was harming her family’s health, particularly her vulnerable son who had asthma and allergies. She also said the situation was causing stress. The courts are best placed to deal with these types of disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This suggests a record keeping failure. Our investigation has therefore relied on the available evidence.
The resident complained to the landlord in 2023 about damp and mould in the property. Records show it carried out inspections and completed some repairs. It is unclear when she reported that the issue had returned. However, between August 2024 and April 2025 it identified possible causes, including roofing or masonry defects and leaking guttering. It repaired the guttering, addressed crumbling render and applied a bonding coat to the affected basement pillars.
The landlord delayed the inspection for six months before the resident complained. Afterward, it delayed again, leaving the resident to chase for a response which led to unavoidable time and trouble for her. An inspection took place on 5 June 2025, 8 months after its referral to the property surveying team. This significantly breached its damp and mould policy which aims for an assessment within 20 working days of a report.
Prior to the landlord’s assessment on 5 June 2025, it again repaired crumbling render and applied a bonding coat to the basement pillars. It is unclear when or how it identified these issues, indicating a record keeping failure. It referred to the repairs in its stage 1 response stating it completed these 15 working days later, in line with its repairs policy of 25 days. It also repointed external brickwork, filled cracks and applied water seal. It was also aware of a leak in the chimney stack, but records show no action to address this. It failed to take timely and effective action to resolve this, which likely increased the risk of further damage.
The landlord’s inspection identified failing tanking in the basement and an active leak. It said further investigation was needed and as part of its complaint response instructed a specialist damp and mould contractor. They found visible damp, flaking plaster and high moisture readings in the basement, possibly caused by water ingress from leaking pipework. They also found issues throughout the property and said possible causes included incorrectly capped chimney stacks, issues with nearby drains, lack of vents and old inefficient vents within the property. Best practice would have been for the landlord to set out a clear action plan to fix the identified issues and communicate this to the resident.
There is no record the landlord took any action following the inspections, despite the resident chasing. A further inspection took place on 9 October 2025 but we have seen no report of its findings. She has told us the chimney stacks have been repaired but all other works, including a possible leak in the basement, remain outstanding. This breaches its damp and mould procedure which says any remedial works will be raised within 10 working days of an inspection.
The resident repeatedly raised concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her son’s health. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses and offered compensation. However, it gave no reassurance that it had taken these concerns seriously. It did not consider any hazards and has not demonstrated any learning.
The landlord offered the resident £270 for delays, inconvenience and impact due to vulnerabilities. While it offered some redress, it was not proportionate to the delays exceeding a year that she experienced. Its offer also failed to address its poor communication or provide reassurance that the property was safe. Repairs remain outstanding with the root cause unaddressed. We have, therefore, made a failure finding and orders to reflect this in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Under our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. They must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and stage 2 within 20 working days. It should not extend these by more than 10 and 20 working days respectively without good reason. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Code.
The landlord responded at stage 1 within its complaint policy timescale. It acknowledged the stage 2 escalation 9 working days late. This was not in line with its 5-working day policy timescale and delayed its complaint response.
There were also inaccuracies in its complaint responses such as the date of the stage 1 response. Landlords must ensure accuracy in complaint responses.
That said, the landlord acknowledged the delay and errors, apologised and offered £60 compensation. This was in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.

Learning

General learning

Landlords must ensure accuracy of information in complaint responses to avoid confusion.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s lack of evidence made it challenging to assess the timeline of events. Accurate records must be kept and shared during investigations. It should view our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

Landlords must maintain clear communication with residents, so they are aware of actions taken and progression of queries and repairs.