London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202341608)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341608

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs, including reports of mould and a subsequent leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated April 1999. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house occupied by the resident, her partner and a child. The resident notified the landlord of vulnerabilities in the household when they raised the complaint.
The resident’s representative brought the complaint to this Service on behalf of the resident. For ease of reference, we will refer to the resident and their representative as ‘the resident’.
On 6 June 2023 the landlord raised a work order to treat mould on the resident’s bathroom ceiling. On 15 June 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said she:
1. had experienced issues with mould in her bathroom for around 9 years. The landlord had treated the mould with paint on multiple occasions and installed an extractor fan. Neither had resolved the issue.
2. paid the landlord to tile the walls and change the flooring to prevent the mould, which cost her around £800. This still did not resolve the issue.
3. had health problems exacerbated by the prolonged issue, and she was concerned about the dangers of mould to her health.
4. wanted a specialist to identify the cause, and for the landlord to renovate her bathroom to resolve the issue.
In August 2023 the landlord completed a renovation to the resident’s bathroom. On 4 November 2023 the resident reported a leak in the bathroom, which she believed was a result of poor work done during the bathroom renovation.
On 19 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. following her complaint, it commenced roof repairs for the bathroom on 26 July 2023 and a bathroom refurbishment on 31 July 2023. It completed all works by 31 August 2023.
2. it made changes during the process and had to redo some of the work.
3. it attended the property on 6 November 2023 after the resident reported a leak, which she believed to be a result of work done during the bathroom repairs. An investigation showed that was not the cause.
4. it understood that the investigation into the leak caused damage and further disruption. However, it was necessary to ensure a thorough inspection.
5. it completed all leak repairs, including remedial works, by 21 November 2023.
6. the resident reported dissatisfaction with the original bathroom repairs on 4 December 2023. She reported not having full use of her bathroom during the repairs, which were prolonged due to poor workmanship. She also had to eat takeaways due to the amount of dust.
7. it apologised that the standard of work and communication did not meet her expectations. It also apologised for the disruption to her and her family.
8. it offered the resident £360 compensation, comprising of:
  1. distress – £120.
  2. inconvenience – £140.
  3. time and effort – £100.
The landlord noted in its stage 1 response that it had communicated with the resident prior to issuing its complaint response with its intended compensation offer. On 15 December 2023 the resident said she was not satisfied with the proposed amount and wanted to escalate her complaint.
On 17 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. it had scheduled to complete the bathroom repairs within 2 weeks; however, some of the work was of a poor quality and needed redoing. Therefore, it completed the work on 31 August 2023.
2. the resident reported a leak on 6 November 2023, believing it was caused by poor work done during the bathroom refurbishment. It identified the cause was a separate issue, which was the heating system pipework.
3. it apologised for the disruption caused but would not increase the compensation offered in its stage 1 response as it felt the offer was fair.
4. as the resident was unable to fully use her bathroom during the works, it applied a 50% rent reduction for 7 weeks totalling £399.00. It would add this to her rent account as per its compensation policy.
In February 2024 the resident contacted this Service. She said she felt insulted by the landlord’s compensation offer and wanted the amount increased to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to a new leak that occurred several months after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. This matter did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 17 January 2024.
The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

The landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs including reports of mould and a subsequent leak

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 will ensure to keep residents informed of its actions and next steps and communicate on a regular basis.
The policy states that following a report, it will establish if it requires an immediate repair. It will assess the property within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem and identify the underlying cause. It will record and raise any remedial works identified within 10 working days of the assessment.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the structure and exterior of all its home, including roofs and any leaking pipework.
It states its repair timescales as:
1. routine day to day repairs, within an average of 20 calendar days.
2. emergencies where there is an immediate danger, attend within 24 hours.
3. emergencies out of hours, attend within four hours to ‘make safe’ and lower the immediate risk. It will complete follow-on repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
4. minor works: medium sized jobs to replace something that it cannot fix, and there is no imminent major work planned to do this – no set timescale.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer compensation where it fails to follow its policies, procedures or guidelines and this has a negative impact on the resident. It may make additional discretionary payments acknowledging the impact, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Its insurance team will consider all personal injury claims.
The policy also states that where a resident cannot use a room(s) in their home because of a repair issue that is the landlord’s responsibility, and which causes prolonged and unreasonable disruption, it will consider a partial refund of rent.
Right to Repair obligations make it incumbent on the landlord to offer compensation when it fails to complete qualifying repairs within the timescale set by government. It should repair leaks from water or heating pipes within 1 working day.
On 12 April 2023 the landlord inspected the resident’s bathroom. This was for mould and because the resident had requested a new bathroom. As the resident had submitted a right to buy application, the landlord advised that it was unable to carry out the bathroom renewal, however it would conduct mould treatment. The records show that the resident cancelled an appointment to treat the mould on 25 April 2023.
It is unclear when the resident initially reported the mould, therefore we are unable to determine if the landlord responded within a reasonable time. However, it did arrange to treat the mould 9 working days after the inspection. Although the appointment did not take place as scheduled, the landlord acted in line with its damp and mould policy.
On 6 June 2023 the landlord raised a work order to treat the mould on the resident’s bathroom ceiling. It is unclear if this was linked to the April 2023 inspection, or if the resident had made a new report. On 20 June 2023 the landlord confirmed that the resident had withdrawn her right to buy application. It carried out a detailed inspection of the bathroom on 4 July 2023, identifying many repairs required for a bathroom renovation.
The inspection identified missing roof slates which were allowing rainwater to damage the bathroom ceiling and needed replacing before it could address the mould. The landlord completed the mould treatment on 24 July 2023, 34 working days after raising the work order. As the repairs would be minor works under the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord’s response time was reasonable.
On 15 June 2023 the resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy with the recurring mould issues and that attempts to resolve the issue had not worked. She wanted the cause of the mould identified and a bathroom renovation. On 17 July 2023 the resident called the landlord chasing the repairs. She called again on 24 July 2023 wanting information on what repairs it would do and when. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould states that landlords should ensure they clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with a timeline or action plan of the repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated this to the resident which meant she had to chase for updates. However, the landlord identified this in its stage 1 complaint response on 19 December 2023. It apologised for its poor communication and offered the resident £100 for the time and effort taken to resolve the issue. This was reasonable.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord also stated that by 31 August 2023 it had inspected and completely refurbished the resident’s bathroom. This was reasonable.
In her complaint, the resident also stated that she had health problems exacerbated by the mould and felt prolonged exposure was dangerous. Whilst the landlord treated the mould in line with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, there is no evidence that it addressed the resident’s health concerns in its stage 1 response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with information on making a personal injury claim as per its compensation policy. That it did not was a failure.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that the resident reported a leak from her bathroom into her kitchen on 4 November 2023. She believed the leak was caused by poor work done during the bathroom renovation. The landlord said it investigated the leak and found that the cause was not a result of the renovation work. It acknowledged that whilst the investigation had caused additional damage and disruption, it had been necessary to ensure a thorough inspection of the pipes. The landlord stated that it had repaired the leak and all required works by 21 November 2023, 11 working days after the report. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it spoke to the resident on 4 December 2023, and she had expressed dissatisfaction with the work done during the bathroom renovation. She said that she had been unable to use the bathroom during the repairs, which were prolonged because of poor workmanship by the contractors. She also said the dust in the kitchen meant she had to eat takeaways.
The landlord responded by explaining that it had made changes during the process leading to some work being redone. It referred to tiling and work above the doors. It apologised that the standard of work had not met her expectations and for any impact the disruption had on her and her family. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £260 for distress and inconvenience. Whilst this was an attempt to put things right, the landlord failed to address the loss of use of the bathroom. This was inappropriate.
On 15 December 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident and discussed its proposed offer of compensation prior to sending its complaint response. The resident advised the landlord that she was not satisfied with the amount and wanted to escalate her complaint.
In its stage 2 response on 17 January 2024, the landlord provided further details on the prolonged bathroom repairs. It stated that it initially scheduled to complete the works within 2 weeks, but as some work was of a poor quality, it needed redoing. It apologised again for the disruption but stated that the compensation offered in its stage 1 response was fair. The landlord did however recognise the loss of use of the bathroom and applied a 50% rent refund for 7 weeks, totalling £399. This was appropriate.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord also explained that the leak reported by the resident in November 2023 was caused by the heating system pipework. The Right to Repair scheme states that landlords should repair leaks from a heating pipe within 1 working day. The landlord completed all repairs to the leak, including remedial works by 21 November 2023, however, it is unclear when it stopped the leak itself. Therefore, we are unable to assess if the landlord responded to the leak in line with the Right to Repair obligations.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused by its delayed repairs and poor communication and made attempts to put things right. Whilst it failed to address the loss of use of the bathroom in its stage 1 response, it identified this in its stage 2 response. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about her health. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs including reports of mould and a subsequent leak.
After carefully considering any distress likely caused to the resident and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 has been made, making a total of £410 compensation.
We have also made an order for the landlord to write to the resident apologising for its failing. It should provide information on how to make a personal injury claim if the resident wishes and provide its insurance details.

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 Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out good practice for a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may offer compensation where it fails to respond to or process a complaint within agreed response times and does not comply with the Code.
The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 15 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 June 2023. The records refer to a complaint response issued by the landlord on 5 July 2023 which was 13 working days after acknowledging the complaint. However, the stage 1 response provided to this Service was issued on 19 December 2023. This was 132 working days after acknowledging the resident’s complaint.
Although it is unclear if the response sent in July 2023 is connected to the resident’s 15 June 2023 complaint, we can determine that both responses were outside of the landlord’s policy timescales. There is no evidence that the landlord requested an extension, and it failed to recognise the delay in its stage 1 response. The delay likely caused to distress to the resident, which was unreasonable.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident prior to issuing its response. It acknowledged that on 15 December 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint as she was not happy with the landlord’s proposed offer of compensation.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 January 2024. This was 18 working days after acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. The landlord’s stage 2 response was in line with its policy.
In summary, the landlord failed to:
1. issue its stage 1 complaint response in line with its policy.
2. request an extension or address the delay within its complaint response.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. After carefully considering any distress likely caused to the resident and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs including reports of mould and a subsequent leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident with:
  1. an apology for the failures identified in this report.
  2. details on how to make a personal injury claim if she wishes and its insurance details.
2. pay the resident £560 compensation, comprising of:
  1. £410 for any distress likely caused by its handling of bathroom repairs including reports of mould and a subsequent leak. The landlord may deduct the £360 offered in its stage 1 response if it can evidence that this has already been paid.
  2. £150 for any distress likely caused by its complaint handling.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

As the resident informed this Service of new issues with the bathroom, including a leak, this Service recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss this.