London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202322362)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322362

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

9 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property and associated repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy under an agreement dated December 2010. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house occupied by the resident and her son. The landlord did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident had reported issues with damp in the property to the landlord since at least 2021. On 19 June 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. she had experienced long standing repair issues with the property.
2. she had spent money on decorating to try and resolve the issues, only for the decoration to be ruined by damp and further issues.
3. her most recent bathroom repairs took place around 4 weeks after the landlord initially attended the issue.
4. she wanted compensation for the inconvenience of having to use washing facilities at a friend’s house.
On 18 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord explained that during an inspection in 2022, it identified that the back of the resident’s kitchen units were damp. The landlord said:
1. during repairs, it found the insulation inside the walls was also wet. It had since completed all replacements and repairs.
2. it had identified faults to the front and rear doors which had contributed to penetrative dampness in the hallway. The doors had now been replaced.
3. it would replace the kitchen floor lino and the hallway carpet.
4. works to the bathroom tiling, bath and kitchen floor screed would commence the following week. It would contact the resident with a confirmed date.
5. it recognised there had been persistent damp issues and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family.
6. it recognised that its communication with the resident had been poor.
7. it awarded £397.56 compensation to the resident, comprised of:
  1. £60 for distress.
  2. £60 for inconvenience.
  3. £150 for the time and effort taken to resolve the issues.
  4. £127.56 for the ongoing disruption and having to use a friend’s facilities.
On 25 July 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. she had raised concerns about damp since 2021, and the ongoing issues were affecting her and her son’s health.
2. she wanted to know why her concrete floor was not replaced in 2021.
3. she had reported issues with a damaged cooker, which the landlord agreed to replace but failed to do so.
4. there was a severe smell of damp in the property.
5. she had replaced the carpet 4 times due to damage caused by damp.
6. there were damp patches on the wallpaper and damp found in the hallway.
7. she understood that until the landlord put in place a damp management programme, the issues would not resolve.
8. she was unhappy with a staff member’s comments, which included that she would need to claim for damaged personal items on her home insurance.
9. she felt that the landlord’s offer of compensation was inadequate.
On 24 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. it was unable to find any records related to a damaged cooker or any agreement to replace it.
2. it had replaced the floor covering in 2021 and there was no record that the floor required any further work. The landlord had since waterproofed the kitchen floor and fit a new covering.
3. it had raised all necessary remedial works to address the smell of damp.
4. it was unable to find any information relating to the resident replacing carpets because of damp. It offered to replace the lounge carpet once it had completed all floor works.
5. it had completed repairs to address the damp patches on the walls.
6. it had identified that the solid floor in the property was defective, allowing damp to travel into the hallway. It was working on this as a priority and the resident would notice improvements in her health afterwards.
7. it did not have a damp management programme. It managed each case of damp individually to completion.
8. it apologised for any offence caused by staff; however, the resident received the correct advice regarding claiming through her insurance.
9. it increased its offer of compensation to £447.56, comprised of:
  1. £60 for distress.
  2. £60 for inconvenience.
  3. £200 for the time and effort taken to resolve the issues.
  4. £127.56 for ongoing disruption and having to use a friend’s facilities.
In September 2023 the resident told this Service that she was unhappy with the damp issues and the landlord’s lack of consideration and communication. She later informed us that the landlord had completed all repairs except to an issue with a window seal which was potentially causing the damp to return. She said she wanted more compensation due to the length of time taken, and the distress and inconvenience caused to her and her son.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that she was unhappy with comments made by a member of staff. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the behaviour complained of took place in the way the resident stated, or whether the landlord took appropriate action in response to the outcome of its investigation, as that would be a personnel issue outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord appropriately investigated the concerns raised and its responses to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property and associated repairs

New provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 added by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 require that properties are free of hazards, including damp and mould, which are so serious that the dwelling is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. The HHSRS classes damp and mould as a potential category 1 hazard and threat to heath. The Housing Act 2004 mandates that homes be free from category 1 hazards.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will take responsibility for identifying, investigating, and resolving damp and mould as quickly and effectively as it can. It states that following a report, an assessment of the property will be agreed within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem and identify the underlying cause. It says:
1. any remedial works identified will be recorded and raised within 10 working days of assessment.
2. multiple fixes may be required, and it will be clear with residents on timescales, keeping them informed throughout.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for:
1. the structure and exterior of the home, including walls, roofs, windows and external doors, as well as door frames or panels (when rotten or insecure).
2. penetrative and rising damp, condensation and mould.
3. kitchen and bathroom floor coverings.
The landlord’s timescales to attend to repairs are:
1. routine (day to day): aim to complete repairs in average 20 working days.
2. emergency, where there is an immediate danger: attend within 24 hours.
The policy states that it does not undertake repairs to fit or maintain cookers, and that it is the resident’s responsibility to undertake their own repairs to their own appliances and fittings.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it expects residents to take out adequate home contents insurance for their furniture, decoration and personal possessions. It will not usually pay where the resident should claim against their insurance. It will consider paying in the following circumstances:
1. where it fails to follow its policies, procedures or guidelines and this has a negative impact on the resident.
2. where it fails to deal satisfactorily with repairs that it is responsible for, and the resident continues to live in poor conditions longer than is reasonable.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints must be made within 6 months of the issue occurring.
On 19 June 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She was unhappy that there had been long standing repair issues in the property. It is not clear which specific issues the resident was referring to. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 18 July 2023, it recognised that there had been ongoing damp issues and apologised. It offered the resident £120 compensation for distress and inconvenience. The landlord explained that it had carried out damp repairs in 2021. It completed further repairs after an inspection in 2022, and listed other repairs it had completed since to resolve the issues.
It is clear from the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s subsequent responses that she had reported issues between 2022 and June 2023. However, there is no evidence of any reports of damp within the landlord’s records during this time. The information provided by the landlord is limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances. This was a failing.
In her complaint, the resident stated that she had spent money on decorating to resolve the issues, and that the decorating had been ruined by damp and other issues. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that on 5 July 2023 the resident said she wanted replacement floor coverings as an outcome. The evidence shows that the landlord replaced the floor covering on 28 July 2023. It also offered the resident compensation of £150 for the time and effort taken to resolve the issues. This was a fair and reasonable response.
In the resident’s complaint she said that she wanted compensation for the inconvenience of having to use a friend’s washing facilities during the bathroom repairs. She said the landlord had taken around 4 weeks to carry out the repairs after initially attending to the issue. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the resident reported the bathroom repairs, therefore we are unable to assess whether the landlord responded in line with its policy. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the resident £127.56 compensation for the ongoing disruption and for having to use a friend’s facilities. This was a reasonable attempt to put things right.
On 25 July 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that in 2021, the landlord had agreed to replace her damaged cooker, but this had not happened. In its stage 2 response on 24 August 2023, the landlord explained that its policy was not to investigate complaints raised more than 6 months after the initial incident took place. It did, however, review its records and was unable to find any information relating to the cooker or an agreement to replace it. As maintenance of the cooker was the resident’s responsibility, the landlord’s response was in line with its policy. This was reasonable.
In her escalation request, the resident asked why the landlord had not replaced her concrete floor in 2021. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that after confirmation from a surveyor, it had completed all works required for the floor at the time. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the advice of an appropriately qualified professional when making decisions about repairs it was responsible for.
In the resident’s escalation request, she reported a severe smell of damp in the property and said the issues were affecting her and her son’s health. She also reported damp in her hallway. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it had raised all works to address the issue. It said an inspection had identified the solid floor to be defective, allowing damp to travel through walls into the hallway, and that it was working to resolve it as a priority. It said that following the repairs, the resident would see improvements in her home and health. The records show that the landlord completed floor repairs on 7 September 2023, with follow on work completed on 29 September 2023.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs states that it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its policy. We are unable to see what the landlord assessed during the inspections as it has not provided copies of any reports. Whilst there is evidence of repairs, we cannot assess whether it completed any risk assessments or a full investigation into all possible causes of the damp. We are also unable to assess if the landlord considered any interim measures to alleviate symptoms. This was unreasonable.
In the resident’s escalation request, she said that she was informed the issues would not resolve until the landlord put a damp management programme in place. It is not clear who informed her of this. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated that it did not have a damp management programme. It said that it treated each damp case individually and managed them to completion. This was a reasonable response.
The resident mentioned in her escalation request that she had replaced her carpet 4 times due to damage caused by damp. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated that it did not investigate complaints raised more than 6 months after an initial incident took place. It did, however, review its records and said it was unable to find any information relating to the resident replacing carpets due to damp. It is unclear when the resident made reports about the carpets, therefore we cannot assess if the landlord acted reasonably.
However, the landlord stated that once it had completed the current floor repairs, it would replace the lounge carpet. It offered the resident a further £50 compensation in addition to the £150 offered in its stage 1 response for her time and efforts. This was a fair attempt to put things right. It is unclear if the landlord replaced the floor coverings after completing the floor repairs.
The resident also reported in her escalation request that there were damp and wet patches on her wallpaper. In its stage 2 response, the landlord described repairs it had completed to resolve the issue. They were the same repairs mentioned in its stage 1 response, which it completed after an inspection in 2022. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states that it would be good practice for landlords to schedule follow up visits at set periods, for at least a year after works are completed, to satisfy themselves that the problem has not returned.
The resident was reporting that damp patches were still present, which indicated that the issue had not been resolved effectively. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this further, by investigating a possible return of the issue or by acknowledging its awareness and setting out its plans to resolve it. The landlord said it had completed repairs to resolve the issue, then later said that the defective floor was causing damp to travel through the walls. This was confusing and offered no reassurance regarding whether the planned floor repairs would address the damp patches on the walls. This likely caused distress to the resident, which was unreasonable.
In her escalation request the resident said that she was unhappy with comments made by a member of staff. This included a comment directing her to claim for damaged personal items through her home contents insurance. In its stage 2 response, the landlord demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s concerns by speaking to the member of staff and concluding that they had not meant to cause offence. The landlord apologised.
The landlord also stated that the advice given by the member of staff about claiming through insurance was correct and referred to the resident’s tenancy agreement. Whilst the landlord responded in line with is policy, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided its insurance details and information on how to make a claim. That it did not, was unreasonable.

Events post Internal Complaints Procedure

In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident informed us that she had since left the property due to the unresolved damp issues.

Conclusion

As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time.
The landlord has evidenced attempts to address the issues. However, this investigation has identified failures by the landlord. When failures are identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The landlord offered £447.56 compensation. Although its offer went some way to put things right, it failed to reflect the full extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. In addition, it did not reflect the following issues:
1. it failed to clearly address the resident’s reports of damp and wet patches on her wallpaper.
2. it failed to provide its insurance details and information on making a claim.
The failures in this case amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the effect on the resident, we have ordered additional compensation of £150. This brings the total compensation for the repair issues to £597.56. This is in line with the range recommended in our remedies guidance where there were failures which had a significant impact on a resident. In this case, the resident explained to the landlord that the longstanding issues were impacting on her and her son’s health.
We have also made an order for the landlord to write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures found in this report. This should include details on making an insurance claim for damaged personal items.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint response times mirror the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out good practice for a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 19 June 2023. After receiving no response, the evidence shows that she called the landlord on 29 June 2023 requesting to discuss her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 July 2023, 13 working days after she raised her complaint. This was not in line with its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 18 July 2023. Whilst this was 8 working days after acknowledging the resident’s complaint, and in line with its policy, the late acknowledgement meant that the landlord’s overall response time was delayed. This was unreasonable.
On 25 July 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request 3 working days later, on 28 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 24 August 2023. This was 19 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. The landlord provided its stage 2 response in a reasonable time, and in line with its policy.
In summary, whilst the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in a reasonable time, its failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in line with its policy resulted in a delayed stage 1 response. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord complaint handling.
After carefully considering the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident apologising for the failures identified in this report. The letter should include details on making an insurance claim for damaged personal items.
2. pay the resident £647.56 compensation, comprising:
  1. £447.56 compensation offered in its stage 2 complaint response if this has not been paid already.
  2. a further £150 for any distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
  3. £50 for any distress and inconvenience likely caused by its complaint handling.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.