London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202344079)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344079

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

5 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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, including the windows and a communal carpet.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property which is a 3 bedroom flat. She has lived in the property with her husband for around 20 years. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the household including the resident’s husband being partially blind and both having limited mobility. Neither of the resident’s speak English. Communication has been from the resident’s daughter as their representative. For clarity, all communication has been referred to as from the resident in this report.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 22 March 2022. She said the windows had been rotten for years, there was overgrown ivy covering a skylight and the communal carpet was old and dirty.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 11 April 2022. It explained it was limited in the timeframe it could investigate back into her complaint. It arranged an inspection of the property and explained that tenants of the block were responsible for the cleaning of the communal area. It offered compensation for not addressing repair issues more quickly.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the response the same day. She continued to report the issues to the landlord. In November 2022 the landlord asked if she wanted to escalate the complaint. It offered further compensation for the ongoing delays with the widows. The landlord subsequently responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 19 February 2024. It explained why the window replacement had been delayed. It also explained the action it had taken in respect of the ivy and the communal carpet. It offered further compensation.
The resident referred her complaint to us. She said the issue with the windows had been ongoing since 2008. However, the landlord had only considered compensation for the period between 2023 and 2024. She requested additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the situation had on her husband’s health. We are unable to draw conclusions relating to impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are matters for a court to decide. A court can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Our Scheme states that we may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The resident told us that the windows have been in a poor condition since 2008. Although we have seen records that the resident raised concerns about the windows from 2008 onwards, she did not pursue this through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure at the time. As such our investigation is limited to the 12 months leading up to the complaint which was made by the resident in March 2022.
During her correspondence with the landlord, the resident raised other issues of concern. As these issues were not part of the formal complaint to the landlord, these cannot be investigated at this stage. This is because the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate complaints and be given the opportunity to put things right if failing have occurred. For clarity, the matters, which do not form part of this assessment are as follows:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a wet room.
2. The landlord’s consideration of a personal injury claim from the resident.

Condition of the property

For clarity, the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property have been addressed separately below.

Windows

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of a property. As such, the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of issues with the windows and to put right any issues it identified which were its responsibility.
It is not in dispute that the landlord is responsible for the windows. Its repairs policy says that where age, wear and tear affect the windows, it will replace these through a planned programmes of work. Its policy does not provide a timeframe for the completion of planned works.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 22 March 2022. She said she had complained over the years about the rotten windows and that they were not airtight. She felt that the condition of the windows was causing higher heating bills and “severe health implications”. She also said there was mould under the windows.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 11 April 2022. It said as follows:
1. It explained that it did not usually investigate matters which occurred over 6 months prior. However, it had used its discretion and had reviewed the information from the last 12 months.
2. It had arranged for the windows to be inspected and a damp and mould survey to be carried out on 19 April 2022. It provided practical advice the resident could follow to reduce damp and mould in the meantime.
3. It acknowledged it should have managed repairs and communication more effectively. It would take learning from this.
4. It offered compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and effort.
Within its response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged there had been failures in its handling of the resident’s concern about the windows. It offered financial redress for its service failure and outlined it had taken learning from its failures. This was in line with our dispute resolution principles of taking steps to put things right and learn from complaints.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that following such reports, it will provide residents with guidance on managing mould. The stage 1 response provided such guidance to the resident in line with its policy.
The landlord’s decision to inspect the windows was an appropriate first step to take in light of the concerns raised. However, we have noted the landlord’s record’s do not corroborate the inspection took place on 19 April 2022 as advised within the complaint response. Instead it took place 10 days later on 29 April 2022.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. She said it was not clear what the landlord planned to do about the windows. She said the condition of them had cost “thousands of pounds over several decades”. She requested a specific timeframe for the window replacement before winter.
The landlord carried out a survey of the property on 29 April 2022. It found as follows:
1. The windows were all rotten and the glass was “off the frame”. The living room window did not stay open. They needed replacement or repair.
2. The wall under the main bedroom window needed repair.
3. There was mould in all the bedrooms, bathroom and living room.
4. The contractor had carried out mould cleaning and shielding that day.
Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk (such as damp and mould), the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
The damp and mould survey and mould treatment conducted by the landlord was carried out 27 working days after the resident had reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says following a report of damp and mould, it will assess the property within 20 working days. As such, its response was 7 days outside of this timeframe. We have not been provided with any evidence to show that the landlord explained or acknowledged this delay.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a response time for planned works, such as window replacement. However, it says that it will carry out general repairs within 25 days. It took the landlord from 22 March 2022 to 29 April 2022 to inspect the windows. As such, this timeframe to inspect and identify any potential temporary repair issues was already outside of its repair policy.
Despite being aware of the condition of the windows and damp and mould being identified, there is no evidence that the landlord considered temporary assistance to improve condition in the property, such as supplying dehumidifiers. This is likely to have helped address the damp in the property pending a permanent fix of the windows. Although the landlord carried out a mould wash, it failed to carry out sufficient interim action. This was despite it being aware of the health concerns and household vulnerabilities and knowing that the resident had reported this issue before.
The resident chased an update on the windows in May, August and September 2022. The landlord said it was unable to confirm a timeframe for the work but had chased its planned work team. The landlord subsequently told the resident in September 2022, that the windows had been added to the planned programme for completion in 2023. It apologised for the delay and to acknowledge this, it offered additional compensation. It was reasonable for the landlord to reconsider its offer of compensation in light of this further delay at the time.
The resident told the landlord on 22 November 2022 that the windows were a health risk and could fall apart. She requested £4,000 compensation for increased heating bills and £1,000 compensation for time and distress over a number of years.
The landlord advised the resident on 2 December 2022that the windows would be replaced from April 2023. It noted that if repairs were needed to the windows, it would carry these out to make the windows safe in the meantime. Although this was reasonable, the landlord had already inspected the windows and noted their condition. It was not clear if it was committing to carryout temporary repairs or if it was expecting the resident to raise further reports of the condition of the windows. Its lack of consideration of any possible temporary repairs was a missed opportunity to mitigate the effect on the resident and on the fabric of the property.
It is reasonable to conclude any requirement for temporary repair would have been evident at the time the windows were inspected on 29 April 2022. It is unreasonable the resident remained no better off in terms of the state of the windows some 8 months later. Although the landlord had committed to replacing the windows the following year, this did not remove the landlord of its obligations to conduct repairs with a reasonable timeframe under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The evidence provided to us shows that the resident chased the window replacement again in April 2023. The landlord advised that she could expect to hear about the windows. However, it did not give a timeframe for this.
There was a gap in the evidence we have been provided with until October 2023. The landlord discussed other housing options with the resident, including supported housing. The resident declined this. The resident further chased the window works in November and December 2023. She said that the damp and mould was making her husband’s skin conditions worse.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 19 February 2024. It said as follows:
1. The property was located within a designated conservation area. As such, it needed to make a number of applications to the local authority about the windows before they were approved. There had been delays in respect of compliance issues, which were beyond its control.
2. It had made a referral to its planned works team in respect of the windows on 20 April 2022.
3. It acknowledged that there had been an unnecessary delay between its inspection of the windows on 29 April 2022 and it completing the required application on 11 August 2022.
4. The window replacement had been deferred to the 2023/2024 financial year. As such, the work was scheduled for March 2024.
5. It acknowledged the effect of the 35 month delay on the resident.
6. It had raised a job on 27 November 2023 to repair broken window locks. It had completed this on 1 December 2023.
7. It explained it was not responsible for heating costs, however, it offered compensation as a goodwill gesture towards this. It signposted the resident to internal and external support with ongoing heating costs.
The landlord calculated the 35 month delay as beginning from April 2021. This was 12 months before the complaint was made. The landlord had previously explained the limitations of how far back it could consider for its investigation.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will not investigate complaints about matters which occurred over 6 months prior, unless there were exceptional circumstances. The landlord used its discretion in this case and considered the circumstances of the year leading up to the complaint in March 2022. This was reasonable and demonstrated an acknowledgment that the issue had been ongoing. It follows that the period of delay considered in its stage 2 response was appropriate.
Although the landlord explained the challenges of replacing the windows due to the property being in a conservation area, we have not been provided with evidence that the landlord proactively kept the resident informed of these barriers to it replacing the windows.
The evidence shows that the resident had to regularly chase the landlord over the 35 month period to ask for updates. This lack of proactive contact from the landlord led to unnecessary frustration for the resident. We appreciate that a landlord can experience difficulties when dealing with a third party. However, there will always remain an overriding responsibility by the landlord to provide a safe home to its tenants, despite any difficulties it may experience with wider planning issues.
We have not been provided with any evidence to show the landlord explained the delay in submitting the application or an explanation for the works being delayed to the 2023/2024 financial year. As such, there were missed opportunities to be transparent with the resident about the progress of the works.
Although residents are responsible for their own heating costs, the landlord’s decision to offer compensation as a goodwill gesture towards this was reasonable in the circumstances. In doing so, the landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It also did so in good faith. It made the process as easy as could be considered, for example by not asking her to provide copies of heating bills.
The landlord told us that it had replaced the windows in April 2024. This was in line with the timeframe stated in its stage 2 response.

Ivy

The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for maintaining the exterior of the property.
The landlord raised a job on 24 March 2021 to remove ivy from the bathroom skylight. It asked for this to be done by its contractors within 20 working days. This was in line with the general repair timeframe as stated in its repairs policy. It noted on 1 April 2021 that the ivy was owned by a private owner from the next door. It could not access the neighbouring property to get to the ivy.
There was a gap in the correspondence we have been provided with in respect of this matter until the following year. The resident made a complaint on 22 March 2022. She said that there was overgrown ivy going through the bathroom skylight. This caused insects to enter. She said the ivy also covered the roof and walls. This had caused the ceiling to get damp and mouldy.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 11 April 2022. It said it had inspected the ivy in 2021 but could not find the outcome of action on its system. As such, it had arranged for the ivy to be inspected on 19 April 2022. The records show the inspection took place later than advised, on 29 April 2022. The landlord found that the skylight was covered in plants which were coming through into the bathroom.
Despite the results of its inspection, we have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord took any action until 16 November 2022. At this point it noted on its repairs log that the ivy had been removed. This was around 8 months after the resident had raised the issue. This was significantly outside of its 25 day response time for general repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord explained this delay to the resident.
The resident told the landlord on 22 November 2022 that although the ivy had been partly cleared, it still covered the skylight. The landlord apologised and said it would look into the matter.
There was a gap in the evidence we have been provided with in respect of the landlord’s actions until it responded to the complaint within its stage 2 response on 19 February 2024. It said as follows:
1. It had not been able to gain access to the private owner’s property throughout October 2022 to remove the ivy. It had gained access via a heating contractor on 16 November 2022 and was able to remove some of the ivy.
2. It had raised a job on 23 January 2023 for the ivy to be cut. However, this had been subsequently cancelled without explanation.
3. It had arranged for the ivy to be removed on 14 February 2024. It was, however, reliant on the private owner of the neighbouring property cooperating in order to conduct the works.
By the time of the stage 2 response it had been almost 2 years since the resident raised this issue within her complaint. It was also acknowledged by the landlord that it had inspected the overgrown ivy in 2021, 3 years before the stage 2 response. Despite this significant amount of time, the landlord did not remove the overgrown ivy between 2021 and February 2024, or be able to demonstrate it was taking proactive measures to resolve the issue for the resident.
We have noted the landlord experienced difficulties in getting access to tackle the ivy through the neighbours property. However, for the issue to remain unresolved for a period of around 3 years was a significant failure.
The landlord’s lack of adequate record keeping and effective communication added to the frustration caused to the resident. The landlord did not have a record of its inspection from 2021 nor did it realise that work in November 2022 had only removed part of the ivy. It also did not have a record for the reason of a cancelled work order from January 2023. It provided no explanation for this or how it would improve this going forward.
The landlord was aware of the effect the resident had described of this issue on the household. We have not been provided with any evidence of the landlord contacting the owner of the neighbouring property, proactively updating the resident or setting out an action plan for how it would proceed if the owner did not respond. Instead, the landlord left the known issue unresolved for around 3 years. This was not appropriate and demonstrated a lack of appreciation of the ongoing situation on the resident and the condition of the property.
The resident told us on 3 September 2025 that the landlord had not cut back the ivy.

Communal carpet

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for keeping the common areas of the building, including communal entrances in reasonable repair. It says that the resident is expected to keep communal areas clean and tidy. This is mirrored in the landlord’s repairs policy, which says that it is responsible for maintaining common entrance ways and stairways. The resident does not pay a service charge towards any communal works.
The resident made a complaint on 22 March 2022. She said the landlord had not maintained the communal areas. As such, her and her husband cleaned the area. She said the communal stair carpet was old and dirty.
Within its stage 1 response of 11 April 2022, the landlord advised that tenants of the block were responsible for cleaning the communal area. This was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. It said that if all the tenants wanted the landlord to take this responsibility on, it could consider this further.
It was reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident of the terms of the tenancy, and also to offer the option of it taking on the communal cleaning. The landlord appropriately set out there would be a resulting charge if it did so.
There was a gap in the correspondence we have seen in respect of this matter until 2 December 2022. The landlord told the resident it had inspected the communal carpet and it stated it was in good condition. However, it suggested it could be changed to vinyl flooring as a “home improvement”. Given the landlord had not found any fault with the condition of the carpet, the offer to replace it with alternative flooring was beyond what it was required to do and a reasonable way to offer a resolution to the resident.
The landlord subsequently raised a job on 16 February 2024 to replace the communal carpet with vinyl flooring. Although this was in line with the resident’s request, we have not been provided with evidence to explain the delay in doing so.
The resident told us on 3 September 2025 that the landlord had not yet replaced the carpet with vinyl flooring.as it offered to do.

Conclusion

The landlord acknowledged some of its failures and offered compensation in respect of these as follows:
1. At stage 1 the landlord offered a total of £240 compensation for the substantive repair issues. Its compensation for complaint handling failings have been considered separately below. The compensation was made up as follows:
  1. £120 inconvenience and distress.
  2. £120 time and effort.
2. It offered an additional amount of £240 compensation on 16 November 2022 following further delays with the window works. This was made up as follows:
  1. £120 inconvenience and distress.
  2. £120 time and effort.
3. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord offered an additional amount of compensation totalling £1,050. This was made up as follows:
  1. £375 distress for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
  2. £225 time and effort.
  3. £150 goodwill gesture towards heating costs.
  4. £100 delay to action the ivy removal.
  5. £200 delay to replace the windows.
In total, the landlord offered £1,530 compensation for the substantive aspects of the complaint during its internal complaints procedure.
When failures are identified, as in this case, 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’s offer of compensation was within the range suggested by our remedies guidance where a landlord had serious repeated failures which had a seriously detrimental impact on a resident and where failures accumulated over a significant period of time.
However, in addition to the failures acknowledged by the landlord, our investigation has identified additional failures, which were not recognised or compensated for, as follows:
1. The property inspection was delayed.
2. Damp and mould treatment took longer than stated in the landlord’s policy.
3. The landlord failed to consider temporary measures to reduce damp.
4. The landlord failed to consider temporary repairs to the windows.
5. It was not proactive in keeping the resident informed of works.
6. It did not explain to the resident why the window replacement was moved to a different financial year.
7. The landlord’s actions in respect of the ivy were outside its repairs policy.
8. The landlord’s record keeping was poor.
9. It did not consider an action plan for if the neighbour was unresponsive.
When these additional failures are considered in conjunction with those that were identified by the landlord, the compensation offered was not sufficient to reflect the totality of the effect on the resident. As such, the failures in this case, when taken together, alongside the landlord’s failure to provide appropriate redress for the impact of the failures, amounts to a determination of maladministration.
We have ordered an additional £300 compensation. This brings the total compensation for the substantive matters to £1,830. This is within our highest range of compensation suggested by our remedies guidance where failures had a seriously detrimental impact on a resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that at stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will subsequently respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If additional time is needed at either stage, it will keep the resident informed.
The resident submitted her complaint on 22 March 2022. The landlord acknowledged it on 28 March 2022. This was 4 working days and so within the timeframe of its complaints policy.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 11 April 2022. This was 10 working days and in line with the timeframe stated in its complaints policy. Despite us not identifying any failures with its complaint handling at stage 1, the landlord apologised for the time taken to respond and offered £25 compensation.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction. The resident clearly expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 11 April 2022. The resident had made her concerns clear following the landlord’s response and had set out why she disagreed with it. Despite this, the landlord did not escalate her complaint. As such, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint in accordance with its policy.
Following regular contact from the resident about the ongoing issues, the landlord asked her on 16 November 2022 if she wanted to escalate the complaint. The resident confirmed this by way of expressing her dissatisfaction again on 22 November 2022.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 19 February 2024. This was 22 months after the resident first made it clear she wished to escalate the complaint. and 15 months after the resident’s confirmation of the escalation request. The time it took for the landlord to respond at stage 2 was significantly outside of its complaints procedure.
The landlord addressed its complaint handling in its stage 2 response and acknowledged it had taken too long to respond. In addition, it also acknowledged it had not responded to an email from the resident in December 2023. It said, this error had been partly due to a staff member being on annual leave. To acknowledge the delays, it offered a total of £240 compensation, made up as follows:
1. £150 poor complaint handling.
2. £90 delay at stage 2.
When combined with the compensation offered at stage 1 for complaint handling this brings the landlord’s total offer of compensation for this matter to £265.
The landlord’s failures in respect of not escalating the complaint and the delay at stage 2 were significant, and amounted to a service failure considerably outside of the timescales allowed by its complaints policy. These delays caused frustration to the resident and affected her ability to bring her case to us earlier, and delayed resolution of her complaint.
Given the delay in escalating the complaint, the delay in responding at stage 2 and the effect of this on the vulnerable resident, the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to these failings. The failure to provide appropriate redress for its failings amount to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered additional compensation of £135. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £400. This is in within the range suggested by our remedies guidance where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, including the windows and communal carpet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. It should provide evidence of compliance with these actions to us:
1. Pay a total of £2,230 compensation to the resident. This amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £1,795 compensation. The landlord can deduct this amount if it can provide evidence this has already been paid. The balance of compensation due must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent account. The compensation is made up as follows:
  1. £1,830 to acknowledge the effect of the landlord’s handling of the repair issues on the resident.
  2. £400 to acknowledge the effect of the landlord’s complaint handling failures on the resident.
2. Confirm to us and the resident its plan to cut back the ivy. This should include the action it will take should the owner of the neighbouring property not permit access for it to conduct the necessary works.
3. Confirm to us and the resident whether it will replace the communal carpet. If so, the landlord should provide a timeframe within which it expects to complete this. If the landlord will not replace the carpet, it must explain its reasoning to us and the resident for its change in position.

Recommendation

It is recommended the landlord reviews it current repairs policy with the view to include a procedure to follow in the event the landlord requires access to a third party property in order to conduct repairs at one of its properties. This should encompass its approach to gain access both where consent is given by a third party and where it is not.