London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202334938)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334938

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

1 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:
1. reports of damp and mould and reports of repairs to the heat and hot water system.
2. reports of pests in the roof and the associated repairs.
3. complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom property with his partner and baby. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident reported:
1. damp and mould in the property on 7 December 2022.
2. pests in the roof on 10 January 2023.
3. that the heat in the property was insufficient on 10 February 2023.
The resident continued to raise reports of pests in the roof on 16 February, 15 March, and 11 October 2023.
The resident raised his complaint to the landlord on 23 November 2023. He told the landlord the windows were in poor condition, let in cold air and caused condensation. He said there was damp and mould in the property, and he asked for the heating system to be replaced to reduce energy bills. He said his baby sleeps in the living room, and he cannot bathe them in the bathroom as the property was too cold. He wanted the issues to be remedied.
On 30 November 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident. It upheld the complaint. It said it would arrange a surveyor to inspect the property and would respond to the resident by 15 December 2023.
Between 2 December and 13 December 2023, the resident raised reports about the lack of heat in the property and that the roof was creaking.
On 19 December 2023 the landlord sent a follow-up letter to the stage 1 response. It set out that it would inspect the storage heater in the property, inspect the kitchen and bathroom vents, and add draught proofing to the front door. It offered the resident a £200 decorating voucher and £270 compensation made up of:
1. £190 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. £80 to recognise its failure of service.
On 2 and 8 January 2024 the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. On 11 January 2024 the landlord offered the resident further compensation of £325, made up of:
1. £230 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. £95 to recognise its failure of service.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 March 2024. It apologised for the delays, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It:
1. said it had inspected and tested the heaters in the property and found the heaters were working correctly. It explained that:
  1. the smell of burning from a heater could be from a build-up of dust.
  2. the resident should move the wardrobe away from the heater.
2. said it had previously provided the resident with manuals to use the heating system effectively. It said he could speak with his energy provider about the energy consumed and costs incurred and consider a different tariff. As it did not charge for energy usage it would not offer compensation for this.
3. said the property’s windows were in good condition.
4. said it would:
  1. install a vent unit in the kitchen and bathroom to prevent the build-up of damp and mould.
  2. complete recommended work to the roof.
  3. install draught excluders on the front door.
5. explained what rehousing options were available to the resident.
6. set out details of its liability insurance in response to the resident’s concerns that he and his family had become ill.
7. set out that damage to belongings could be submitted as a claim to the resident’s home contents insurance and, if he does not have this, he can submit a claim to the landlord’s insurer.
8. said it had previously offered £200 decorating vouchers, and £270 and £325 for the delay, and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It had also offered an additional £460 in the stage 2 response. In total it offered £1,255 made up of:
  1. £740 for the delay, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the substantive issue.
  2. £40 for the delay to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  3. £175 for its failure of service.
  4. £300 for redecoration, £200 of which was made up of vouchers.
On 21 March 2024 the resident asked us to consider the complaint. In August 2025 the resident said the landlord resolved the heating issue in the property. He said the landlord had not installed the vent units, it had missed appointments, and he had chased about pests in the roof but had no response. He wanted the issues remedied and he wanted compensation:
1. for the time he was without heating in the property.
2. to cover costs for energy usage.
3. for the time off work.
4. for money spent on damp and mould cleaning materials and paint.
5. for furniture damaged by damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the landlord’s compensation did not consider the time he took off work for inspections and repairs. Our remedies guidance sets out that in general we would not propose a remedy to reimburse a resident for their time off work and loss of wages whilst repairs were conducted.
However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
Throughout the complaint, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his and his family’s 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.

Reports of damp and mould and reports to repair the heat and hot water system

Accurate record keeping helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures accurate information is provided to residents and as member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it has an obligation to provide us with sufficient information for a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord, particularly its repair records with the contractors, were limited and unclear. This has made difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 7 December 2022.
The occupancy agreement says:
1. it considers the following as emergency repairs:
  1. an extractor fan not working in the kitchen and or bathroom.
  2. the total or partial loss of space and/or water heating from 1 November to 30 April as an emergency repair.
The landlord’s repair policy says:
1. it is responsible for the provision of heat and hot water in the property.
2. it is responsible for the structure of the home, including windows.
3. routine repairs will be completed within an average of 25 working days.
4. it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make the situation safe and ensure a follow-up repair.
The landlords damp and mould policy says:
1. when a report of damp and mould is made, residents receive a “healthy homes” assessment within 5 working days to remove the damp and mould, identify repairs needed, and the issue is monitored for 12 months.
2. it will ensure the responsibility to remedy damp and mould is not solely on the resident.
3. it will keep in regular communication with the resident.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) explains:
1. hazards in a property include damp and mould, and excess cold.
2. the most vulnerable group are children under the age of 14.
The landlord arranged a “healthy homes” inspection of the property for damp and mould on 26 January 2023, following the resident’s reports of damp and mould on 7 December 2022. The inspection found visible mould in the bathroom, bedroom, living room, kitchen and landing. The landlord said that it needed to repair the bedroom window. It advised the resident on ways he could reduce damp and mould in the property, including washing the mould when it appeared, using heating effectively, and ventilating the property.
The landlord had taken over 6 weeks to inspect the property for damp and mould. There is no evidence the resident was kept updated in that time, or that the landlord washed down the damp and mould. The inaction to remove the damp and mould and the delay to inspect the property was inappropriate and not in line with its damp and mould policy.
The resident reported on 6 February 2023 that the property’s heaters were not sufficient, and it was too cold. The evidence shows the landlord investigated this on 10 February 2023. However, the records do not show what it found and what it may have recommended. The lack of records made it difficult to assess if its response was appropriate. This is a failure of its record keeping.
On 13 February 2023 the landlord repaired the bedroom window. This was 12 working days after the inspection of the property that identified this repair. This was in line with its repair policy time scales. This was appropriate.
On 23 and 29 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about damp and mould and that the heaters were not sufficient. He said the property was too cold, he could not afford to heat it, and since his last report he had a baby. He wanted an alternative heating system that was cheaper to run, for the property to be damp proofed, and reported that the windows let in cold air and caused condensation.
On 30 November 2023 the landlord told the resident it had arranged a surveyor to inspect the property, and it would have a report by 15 December 2023.
On 8 December 2023 the landlord arranged a contractor to inspect the heaters in the property. The contractor adjusted the temperature, tested the system and left it in working order. This was appropriate. However, there is no evidence it considered the vulnerabilities in the household, and it had not inspected the property in line with the times set out in its repair policy. This was inappropriate.
On the 11 December 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the inefficiency of the heaters following an inspection he said took place that day. There is no evidence of this inspection. The landlord explained to the resident on 11 December that it would receive a report in the next 10 working days.
On 12 December 2023 the resident reported the hot water was not working. The landlord said it would visit the property and order a new thermostat.
The contractor attended the property on 14 December 2023. It found there was no hot water in the property. It adjusted the temperature, tested it, and left the heating system in working order. It was appropriate to ensure the heat and hot water worked. However, it had not attended to this within 24 hours as set out by the occupancy agreement and repair policy. This was inappropriate.
Our Spotlight report on heating, hot water, and energy, published in February 2021, says landlords should provide clear information about the heating system and the thermostat.
Considering the contractor had adjusted the heating temperature on 2 occasions to ensure the system was working, it would have been reasonable to provide support and clear information about the heating system to the resident. There is no evidence the landlord did this at the time and it would have been reasonable and demonstrated a resolution focused approach had it done so.
On 19 December 2023 the landlord updated the resident that it was recommended that it further inspect the vents in the kitchen and bathroom, to apply draught proofing strips to the front door, and check the storage heaters. It was appropriate that the landlord set out what repairs were needed in the property.
However, the landlord had already inspected the property when it said it needed to inspect the property again. This delayed repairs to improve heating and its attempts to remedy the damp and mould. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s website at the time confirmed it would signpost and support a resident where they were struggling with energy bills. Following the reports made by the resident and the landlord’s inspections, there is no evidence it had replied to the resident’s concerns that it was too expensive to heat the property. This was inappropriate.
On 2, 5 and 8 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord for an update as his heat and hot water had still not been fixed and the thermostat had not been replaced. The landlord updated the resident on 9 January 2024 that it had to find a different contractor to attend to the property. The landlord had not proactively kept the resident up to date until he had chased it for an update. This was unreasonable.
On 15 January 2024 the landlord arranged a contractor to inspect the property. There is no evidence of the contractor’s findings. This is a failure of the landlord’s record keeping. The next day the landlord checked in with the resident about the appointment. The resident said the hot water had not been fixed, and that the contractor had explained:
1. the heaters needed to be replaced.
2. the panel heater in the property was not on the Economy7 tariff.
3. the thermostat needed to be replaced.
4. he was waiting for hot water in the property to be fixed.
The delay to repair the hot water was inappropriate and not in line with the occupancy agreement and repair timescales. This caused distress and inconvenience to the household who endured not having access to hot water during the winter months.
There is no evidence when a repair to the hot water in the property was completed. This is a failure of the landlord’s record keeping.
On 17 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord if the property could use gas central heating. On 25 January 2024 the landlord explained there was no gas supply to the property to be able to switch to gas central heating. It was reasonable to respond to the resident’s request with an explanation of why this was not possible.
On 22 January and 3 February 2024, the resident asked the landlord if there had been an update about the damp and mould remedies, including installing draught proof strips to the front door.
The landlord updated the resident on 5 February 2024. It said a contractor would install draught excluders to the front door and inspect the heaters. It was appropriate to update the resident. However, this was after he had chased for an update on the repairs. The landlord had also not completed repairs within the times set out in its repair policy. This was inappropriate.
On 12 March 2024 the landlord received a response from its contractor that the heaters in the property were working.
On 18 March 2024 the landlord explained to the resident it would not replace the heaters. The resident replied that the heaters were broken and insufficient to heat the property, and one of them would ‘spark’ when turning it off and cause a burning smell. He asked for a copy of the report. The next day the resident told the landlord he had not used the bedroom as it was too cold.
The resident has said some of his furniture was damaged due to damp and mould and the delays to remedy it. We note that the landlord provided the resident with details of its liability insurance in its complaint responses. This was reasonable.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 21 March 2024 and upheld the complaint.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, we will consider if the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this we consider if the offer of redress and commitments to remedy issues, have been in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by apologising for its failings. However, In the landlord’s complaint responses, it did not consider:
1. that it had not removed damp and mould or set out interim measures to remedy this in the property when it was reported.
2. its lack of proactive updates to the resident about the lack of heat and hot water, the damp and mould in the property, and the associated inspection findings and repairs.
3. the vulnerabilities in the household during the delays to inspect and remedy the damp and mould and heat and hot water in the property.
4. whether it would replace the thermostat as it had told the resident.
5. the inconvenience of repeated inspections of the property.
6. that it had not provided support and signposted the resident to relevant external agencies when it was reported that energy costs were too expensive.
Since the landlord’s complaint response, the resident confirmed the heat and hot water in the property had been remedied. The landlord had also provided evidence it installed draught excluders to the front door. However, there is no evidence the damp and mould had been remedied, and there is no evidence it completed all the repairs it had set out in its complaint responses. The landlord has therefore not put things right.
The landlord offered compensation totalling £1,215. This was not proportionate to the impact of its failings on the resident over a considerable period, especially as the issues are ongoing. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £400 compensation. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
Considering this, we find maladministration in how the landlord handled the reports to remedy damp and mould and heat and hot water in the property.
We have also made orders that the landlord should inspect the resident’s property for recurrence of damp and mould and any further works required.

Reports of pests in the roof and the associated repairs

On 10 January, 16 February, and 15 March 2023 the resident reported pests in the loft.
The landlords repair policy says:
1. it is responsible for pests in the property and deterrents, such as blocking and filling holes.
2. it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home, including roofs.
3. it will complete routine repairs within an average of 25 working days.
The landlord arranged an inspection of the roof on 4 October 2023. It was recommended to block holes in the roof. The evidence shows the repairs were completed by 12 November 2023. It was appropriate to inspect and repair the roof, however this was not in line with the times set out in the landlords repair policy. The delay to inspect and repair the roof was inappropriate.
The resident reported on 11 December 2023 that since the roof was repaired it creaked and banged. He chased the landlord about this on 22 January 2024.
The landlord responded to the resident in its stage 2 response. In the complaint response it said it inspected the roof on 11 March 2024 and approved recommended works on 18 March 2024.
The delay to inspect the roof for repairs was not in line with the times set out in the landlords repair policy. This was inappropriate.
The landlord did not acknowledge the delay to inspect and repair the roof in its complaint responses. Therefore, we find maladministration in how it handled the reports to repair the roof.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact.
The evidence shows that since the complaint responses the landlord repaired the roof on 14 and 22 April 2024. However, the resident has told us that there a further issue with pests in the roof. It is recommended the landlord contacts the resident about this.

Complaint handling

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code):
1. if the resident escalates the complaint to stage 2, the landlord should provide its response within 20 working days of the escalation.
  1. if the landlord needs an extension, it should communicate the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. if the landlord needs a further extension, it should agree this with the resident.
The resident raised his complaint to the landlord on 23 November 2023. The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 30 November 2023.
The landlord sent a further response to the resident on 19 December 2023 where it set out a plan to inspect the property and offered compensation. It is unclear why the landlord had not considered the compensation and action plan in its stage 1 response and sent a further response to the resident. This could have caused confusion and a barrier in the complaint handling process. This was unreasonable.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 2 January 2024. The landlord had until 30 January 2024 to provide its stage 2 response or confirm an extension to respond.
The landlord had not set out to the resident that it needed an extension to respond. The resident chased the landlord for the stage 2 response on 3 February. The delay to provide the stage 2 response to the resident caused him distress and inconvenience, as he chased the landlord about it and referred the complaint to us on 4 and 8 March 2024.
On 12 March 2024 the landlord explained to the resident that he needed to escalate the complaint if he was unhappy. The resident had already escalated the complaint which the landlord had acknowledged, so this response was confusing and could have caused a barrier to the complaint process. This was unreasonable.
The landlord provided the stage 2 response to the resident over a month late on 21 March 2024. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy.
The landlord recognised the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to send the stage 2 response and offered £40 to the resident.
The landlord had not considered the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to:
1. the additional responses sent to the resident at stage 1 and 2.
2. the lack of an extension request and timeframe to send the stage 2 complaint response.
3. explaining to the resident he could escalate the complaint, when he had already done so.
Considering the above, we have found service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s offer of £40 went some way to putting things right, however it did not take account of the issues outlined above. Considering the landlord’s complaint policy and our remedies guidance, the landlord should apologise and pay the resident a further £60.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and repairs to the heat and hot water system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the roof and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. complete an inspection of the property for damp and mould and provide a copy of the report and its recommendations to the resident and this Service.
2. within 14 days of the inspection write to the resident
  1. with an action plan to complete recommended repairs considering its repair policy and ensure it completes the repairs. The action plan should include:

(1) fitting a new vent in the bathroom and bedroom.

(2) replacing the thermostat, unless it’s evidenced it had already done this, or it’s evidenced that it’s no longer recommended to replace it.

(3) any additional recommendations from the inspection to remedy damp and mould in the property.

signpost the resident to information on how to use the heating and hot water system efficiently.
signpost the resident to available energy bill support.
apologise in writing for the failings set out in this report and explain the lessons it has learnt from this. The apology should be made by a senior member of staff.
pay the resident a total of £1,865, broken down as:
1. £1,615 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the reports of damp and mould and repairs to the heat and hot water system.

(1) the landlord can deduct £1,215 offered in its complaint responses, if it’s evidenced this has already been paid.

£150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the reports of pests in the roof and the associated repairs.
£100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the handling of the complaint.

(1) the landlord can deduct £40 it offered in its complaint responses, if it’s evidenced this has been paid to the resident already.

Recommendations

The resident has told us that there are further issues with pests in the property and the landlord should consider contacting him about this.