London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202401253)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401253

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

30 October 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 damp and mould and repairs identified by the local council.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lives with her daughter.
The resident made several historical reports and complaints about damp and mould. On 19 February 2024 a damp and mould inspection was carried out. It identified that the living room window and bathroom needed renewal. A repair to the bathroom radiator, a mould wash, and a flush of the rear drains were also needed.
On 6 March 2024 the resident made another complaint about damp and mould. She said the damp and mould team had attended 3 times previously, but the problem remained. She said the bedroom wall was very wet and the living room window was rotten and mouldy. The resident said all rooms had mould. She wanted a specialist to attend and inspect the property, not just a cleaner sent round. The resident explained the breathing difficulties her and her daughter had experienced and wanted to be moved to another property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 June 2024. It said there was an outstanding work order for a mould wash. The landlord said it had asked its contractor to contact the resident to arrange this. It offered the resident £200 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 July 2024. She said her complaint had not been taken seriously so she had contacted the local council housing enforcement team. The resident said the local council was arranging a visit to inspect the property. She expressed her frustration that the landlord could call about rent payments but had not contacted her about the issues she had raised. The resident said she was getting a doctor’s letter to explain the affect the damp and mould was having on her and her daughter’s health.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had repeatedly chased it about the outstanding issues. It apologised for not providing regular and clear updates or an action plan. The landlord said the local council had sent it a notice of entry and an inspection had taken place on 22 July 2024.
The landlord listed the repairs it would carry out based on the local council’s inspection report. It said the report stated there was no rising or penetrating damp but there was condensation damp. The landlord said it provided an active repair service. Therefore, it needed to wait until the damp problem with the bedroom wall reoccurred to be able to address it. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £420.
The resident contacted us to say she was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said the repairs had not been carried out. The resident said the household’s health was getting worse due to the mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us that the damp and mould had affected her and her daughter’s health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident advised us that the damp and mould had been a problem since 2012. We have noted the resident previously made a complaint about damp and mould in 2022. While the resident raised the issues previously, these did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure. We are investigating the resident’s complaint made on 6 March 2024 and will consider evidence up to 12 months prior to this date.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould and repairs identified by the local council.

The resident completed an online complaint webform about damp and mould on 10 January 2024. She said she had ongoing damp and mould which had ruined 6 sets of curtains, nets and blinds. The resident told the landlord that she needed to buy cleaning products weekly. She said the living room window was rotten and needed changing to double glazing.
In response, the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 24 January 2024. This was carried out within the 20 working days stated in the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
The landlord identified repairs during the inspection. On the same day, it raised 3 work orders for a repair to the bathroom radiator, a mould wash, and a flush of the rear drains. The landlord raised the work orders in line with the timescales in its damp and mould policy.
It also submitted a renewal request for the living room window and bathroom. However, there was no evidence that the resident’s expectations had been managed as she was not told about the timeframes involved for the renewal requests.
On 19 February 2024 the landlord carried out a mould wash of the bedroom and living room. Four days later, the resident told the landlord that mould was already returning. The resident said the work to the drains and bathroom radiator had been completed. She requested the new living room window and bathroom renewal that were discussed at the inspection be carried out. The resident asked for the bedroom wall to be surveyed as it was very wet. This was also affecting a socket on the wall. The evidence does not show the resident received a response to this email.
The resident raised these matters again in her complaint on 6 March 2024. She chased the landlord about the damp and mould 6 times in the month after making her complaint. She repeatedly asked the landlord to contact her about the damp and mould.
There was no evidence to show the landlord replied to the resident until 16 April 2024. The landlord said a work order had been raised for a mould wash. This was raised on 5 April 2024. It said the contractor would be in touch to arrange this. However, the evidence showed this job did not take place.
The resident continued to chase the landlord on several occasions about damp and mould. It was not until 17 May 2024 that the landlord identified that the contractor had not received the work order for the mould wash. A landlord internal email stated under its procedure the contractor could not reattend within 3 months of attending the property. It said that due to this procedure, the work order should not have been raised.
We were unclear what procedure the landlord was referring to. We have not seen this procedure. This is also not referred to in the landlord’s damp and mould policy. It should not have taken until 17 May 2024 and the resident repeatedly chasing, for the landlord to identify the work order had not been received by the contractor and that this was not the correct course of action.
The landlord’s internal email said that it would cancel this work order and ask the resident for photos of the damp and mould. It said upon receiving the photos it would assess what the next steps were. However, on receiving the photos the landlord raised another work order for a mould wash. This was just 4 working days after it had cancelled the work order previously raised for a mould wash. Cancelling the previous work order caused an unnecessary delay in progressing the matter.
The landlord told the resident that it would have asked a surveyor to attend. However, it did not do this as it said a surveyor had already attended 4 months prior and some work had been carried out. A landlord internal email dated 18 July 2024 stated again that the matter could not be referred further because a supervisor had attended in January 2024. If the resident was still reporting problems, having attended 6 months previously should not have prevented another inspection being carried out.
On 24 May 2024 the resident told the landlord that she did not want another mould wash, she wanted an inspection. Despite this, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 June 2024 and advised the resident that there was an outstanding mould wash. It said the contractor would contact her to arrange the appointment.
The landlord made no other reference to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in its stage 1 response. This was not an appropriate response to the matters the resident had repeatedly raised. The landlord did not reference the other work it had previously identified in its damp and mould inspection which included renewal of the living room window and bathroom.
The resident contacted the local council housing enforcement team about the damp and mould. This was because she felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. The resident should not have felt the need to do this.
The local council housing enforcement team sent the landlord a notice of entry and the inspection took place on 22 July 2024. As a result of this visit, several repairs were identified. The landlord listed these in its stage 2 response. These included:
1. replacing the electrical meter cupboard
2. repairs to the front door
3. repairs to an electrical socket in the bedroom
4. repairs to the living room window, if the new replacement window was not being installed within 6 months
5. repairs to the bath plinth, if the bathroom renewal was not being carried out within the next few months
6. replacing defective guttering
7. fitting a cooker extractor hood
8. replacing a missing kitchen shelf.
The landlord said the local council did not find evidence of rising or penetrating damp. It said it was found that there could be damp from condensation. The landlord told the resident it was recommended that the bed be pulled away from the wall to make space for the air to circulate to help with condensation. There was no evidence that the landlord gave the resident any other advice regarding condensation. This was a missed opportunity to explore additional help to address condensation damp, such as a dehumidifier.
The landlord told the resident that it provided an active repairs service. Therefore, as there was currently no damp on the bedroom wall it said it would have to wait until the problem reoccurred to attend. This was reasonable. We have noted that the local council inspection took place on a dry day in the summer. Whereas the resident has advised us that the bedroom wall gets damp in wet weather.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would carry out the repairs identified by the local council. Landlord internal emails showed there were some delays in raising the jobs. These needed to be repeatedly chased up within the landlord in August 2024. In March 2025 the landlord advised the resident that there were some “complaint action tasks” that were outstanding. It said a project team had been set up within the landlord to address these and apologised for the delays.
When some appointments were made, the evidence showed that the resident rearranged some dates. The landlord cannot be held accountable for any delays caused by the resident rearranging appointments.
The resident has told us that the front door repair, cooker extractor hood installation, living room window replacement and bathroom renewal are still outstanding. She confirmed the electrical socket was repaired. However, the resident stated the operative advised not to use the socket due to the wall being so damp. The resident has told us that the bedroom wall is still getting very wet.
The evidence showed the front door repair was delayed by both parties. The resident needed to rearrange the first 2 appointments. Then the landlord cancelled an appointment as it felt the work was more suited to a contractor. The contractor attended on the 6 January 2025 and has reported the repair as completed. It was unclear based on this evidence why the resident thought this repair was outstanding.
It has not been possible to establish from the evidence what has occurred regarding the cooker extractor hood. The landlord’s repair records state the job was marked as “complete” on 10 September 2024 due to no access. A landlord internal email dated 12 March 2025 said access had been given in January 2025.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that the living room window replacement was on its planned works programme. This was to be completed in 2025/2026. It said it had raised a job for a quote for the living room window replacement. The landlord said the window replacement was subject to the costs being approved. It said if it declined the quote, it would complete a temporary repair to the window until the planned works programme in 2025/2026.
The landlord attended the property on 2 October 2024 to carry out repairs to the living room window. The job notes showed the resident declined the repair as she was getting a new window and wanted to wait for that rather than having the window repaired. The landlord cannot be responsible for this outstanding repair, if the resident has declined this being completed.
However, it was unclear what happened regarding the window quote. We have not seen any records about this. The work order for the quote was listed as completed 7 weeks after the landlord attended to carry out the repairs.
The resident advised us that over a year after the landlord’s final response, she has not received any update about the planned works programme for the living room window or bathroom which were due in the current financial year. We have not seen any records relating to upcoming planned works programmes.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord about the health issues that her and her daughter were experiencing which included repeated chest infections. She said she thought these were due to the damp and mould in the property. In its stage 2 response, £200 of the compensation the landlord awarded was for “distress for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities”. However, the landlord did not address this in any other way during its complaint process or in any other communications with the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the multiple times the resident had needed to chase it, over several months. It apologised that it did not provide regular or clear updates and an action plan.
The landlord awarded £180 compensation at stage 1. This was £40 for distress; £40 for inconvenience; £50 for time and effort; and £50 for service failure. In its stage 2 response the landlord increased the compensation to £400. This was £200 for distress for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities. £100 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved. £100 for inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact. It was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation and to increase this at stage 2.
Considering the above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and repairs identified by the local council. This is because of the delays the resident experienced in the damp and mould being addressed. These were caused by the landlord’s confusion over its procedure and a surveyor not being asked to reattend the property. The resident also needed to contact the local council’s housing enforcement team to get the matters progressed. While the compensation the landlord initially offered was in line with our remedies guidance, there were still works that were outstanding and need to be taken forward to put things right.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £800 compensation. This is made up of the £400 the landlord awarded during its complaints process and an additional £400. This is for distress and inconvenience due to delays, the resident feeling the need to get the local council involved and the lack of advice and support provided for the condensation damp. We have also made several orders for the landlord to carry out.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident made her complaint on 6 March 2024. However, the stage 1 response was not issued until 14 June 2024. This was 68 working days after the resident made her complaint. This timeframe considerably exceeded the timescales in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint. The landlord did not address all the resident’s points about damp and mould that she raised at stage 1.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not provide the resident with details on how to escalate her complaint. This is important information that is required to be included under the Code.
The landlord awarded the resident £20 compensation for complaint handling at stage 1, this remained unchanged at stage 2. It was appropriate to award the resident compensation. However, £20 was not proportionate for the complaint handling failures the resident experienced at stage 1.
Considering the above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because of the considerable delays the resident experienced at stage 1, no escalation details being provided and the many damp and mould aspects of the resident’s complaint that were not addressed at stage 1.
To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord should award the resident £100 in compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance. This amount replaces the £20 the landlord awarded the resident during the complaints process, which the resident did not accept.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of damp and mould and repairs identified by the local council.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:

The landlord must pay compensation of £900 to the resident. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. If the previous £400 compensation awarded to the resident has already been applied to her rent account, only the balance of £500 is due to the resident. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to us.

The compensation is comprised of:

£800 in respect of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and repairs identified by the local council.
£100 in respect of time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord is ordered to carry out an electrical safety check on the socket on the bedroom wall. If any hazards are identified, these must be addressed. The landlord must send the resident and us a copy of the electrical safety check report.
The landlord must carry out a damp and mould inspection of the property and carry out any work identified. The landlord must send the resident and us a copy of the damp and mould inspection report.
The landlord must provide the resident with advice and tools to address condensation, giving consideration to whether it needs to provide the resident with a dehumidifier. The landlord must provide the resident and us with a copy of its written advice, specific to the resident’s property, about managing condensation and what it can do to assist the resident with this matter.
The landlord must write to the resident and us providing an update on the planned works programme for the replacement living room window and bathroom renewal. It must also offer the resident another opportunity to proceed with the temporary repair on the living room window.
The landlord must carry out an inspection on the front door and the cooker extraction hood and carry out any outstanding work. The landlord must send the resident and us a copy of this inspection report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord meet with the resident to review her housing options and provide any relevant support and guidance which may help facilitate her move to a larger property.