From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202410312)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410312

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of issues within his property, including damp and mould, and asbestos.
    2. The resident’s reports of no gas supply and subsequent lack of heating and hot water in his property.
    3. The resident’s reports of mice within his property.
    4. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat.
  2. On 20 December 2023, a solicitor acting on behalf of the resident sent a pre-action letter under the Pre-action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims to the landlord. This was regarding a rotting bedroom window, cracks on the kitchen ceiling and wall, damp and mould in the bathroom, damaged flooring causing flooding to the property below, exposed asbestos, and insufficient ventilation.
  3. The resident then complained to the landlord on 14 January 2024. He said he had no gas in his property since June 2019, had serious damp and mould, and asbestos in his pipes since September 2019. He also said he had a serious pest infestation.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 March 2024. It said the resident’s claim was with its solicitor. It advised its disrepair team would therefore address his concerns about damp and mould and asbestos and agree compensation. It said it was unable to investigate issues over 6 months old, so could not look at his historic concerns about his gas supply. It agreed that it should have completed the current repairs sooner and offered total compensation of £180.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 March 2024 and provided further details on 2 April. He said the pest infestation had been ongoing since 2007. He said an asbestos survey in 2017 was not comprehensive and believed his persistent cough was linked to exposure to asbestos. He said the landlord “rigged” his gas supply when he was absent in 2019.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 11 April 2024. It confirmed it had since restored gas to the resident’s property and the issue was resolved. It reiterated its disrepair team would investigate and respond to issues about damp and mould, and asbestos. It confirmed it arranged for a pest control contractor to attend, and they would complete 3 visits by 15 April. It offered an additional £90 compensation, taking its total offer to £270.
  7. The resident told the Ombudsman the landlord had not checked for asbestos properly, and it was present in the water pipes in the flat upstairs. He said he had black mould present in his property still. He also wanted compensation for when the landlord altered his gas supply in 2019. He said he sought advice from a solicitor in 2023 but was no longer using them. He confirmed his claim did not proceed to court.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment

  1. The resident has said the presence of asbestos has caused him a persistent cough. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. It will not be considered in this report.
  2. The resident complained about the landlord “rigging” his boiler whilst he was away from the property in 2019 (the specific nature of his concern is not entirely clear from the evidence). The landlord responded to this issue on 18 November 2021 in a stage 1 complaint response. Its complaint policy states that complainants have 6 months to escalate complaints. There is no evidence that the resident escalated his complaint at that time. As this matter did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure we cannot investigate it.

The resident’s reports of issues within his property, including damp and mould, and asbestos

  1. In his initial complaint of 14 January 2024, the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in his bedroom and bathroom. He also said there was exposed asbestos in the water pipes to the flat above his. Both of these issues formed part of the claim his solicitor raised with the landlord on 21 December 2023. In its complaint responses in March and April 2024 the landlord said its disrepair team was dealing with these issues and directed him to his solicitors for any updates.
  2. The landlord had taken steps to resolve much of the issues at the earliest opportunity but failed to mention this in its complaint response. These steps included an asbestos survey of the property on 2 February 2024, which found no presence of asbestos. This was crucial for ensuring the resident felt safe within his property at the earliest opportunity. Although there is no evidence to show the landlord shared this, the resident was aware of the outcome, as he referred to the outcome in his escalation of 2 April.
  3. Furthermore, on 2 April 2024, the landlord arranged for an independent expert witness to inspect the property. They determined the property was fit for habitation, but there were problems in it. They recommended several repairs related to damp and mould. These included overhauling the kitchen extractor fan and cleaning and treating mould in the bedroom. They found no mould or dampness in the bathroom.
  4. The landlord overhauled the extractor fan on 12 April 2024, did a deep clean, and arranged a mould wash for 20 June 2024. However, it was unable to gain access to the property at the arranged appointment. It appropriately wrote to the resident the same day asking him to contact it if he wished to rearrange this. There is no evidence of him doing so at that time.
  5. In summary, the landlord inspected the property and found no asbestos in a reasonable timeframe. It then arranged an independent survey and acted to complete the recommendations suggested. It missed an opportunity to explain these actions in its complaint response, but its actions were nonetheless appropriate and reasonable for the issues reported to it.

The resident’s reports of no gas supply and subsequent lack of heating and hot water in his property

  1. The resident complained that he had no heating or hot water as he had no gas supply over a prolonged period. The evidence shows the resident declined the landlord turning the gas supply on when it attended at his property in September 2023. There is no evidence to suggest what prompted this.
  2. On 20 December 2023, the resident reported he had no gas supply or heating or hot water. The landlord attended on 8 January 2024 to turn it on. He declined to allow them to do so as he believed the supply was “rigged.” However following the appointment, the landlord subsequently decided it would turn it on out of welfare concerns and did so on 7 February 2024.
  3. The landlord’s final complaint response of 11 April 2024 confirmed it had restored the gas supply to the property. At this appointment in February 2024, it also completed a boiler check and assured the resident there were no gas leaks and the gas supply and boiler were both safe. These were appropriate steps based on the issue raised by the resident.
  4. The landlord was delayed in attending the resident’s property between 20 December 2023 (when he again reported the matter) and 11 January 2024 (when it attended and the resident declined). This was particularly relevant as it was a winter month and the resident said he had no heating. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged it should have acted “more effectively and swiftly” regarding the gas supply.
  5. The landlord took appropriate steps to review the failings internally to be able to take preventative measures. It apologised for this and offered total compensation of £180. The landlord offered discretionary compensation, which was in line with its compensation policy. This recognised the avoidable distress, inconvenience, and unfair impact on the resident. This was proportionate resolution to the failings identified.
  6. In summary, the landlord was delayed in restoring gas to the property for heating and hot water over a short period. It recognised this and offered proportionate resolution. It acted responsibly in proceeding with turning the gas on to support the resident’s welfare.

The resident’s reports of mice within his property

  1. In his complaint of 14 January 2024, the resident said he had a serious pest infestation in his property. In its acknowledgement, the landlord said this was the first time it could see the resident reporting this issue and asked for further details. The resident responded numerous times following this that the issue had been ongoing for several years. However, the report on 14 January is the first evidence of this.
  2. On 5 March 2024, the landlord asked a pest control contractor to attend at the property. They attended on 19 and 27 March 2024 and finally on 15 April 2024 to treat the property for mice. The landlord confirmed this in its stage 2 reply of 11 April 2024, stating there was low infestation.
  3. In the report of its final visit of 15 April 2024, the pest control contractor told the landlord that a further visit to the property was required. This was because it could not find entry points in all rooms due to “clutter.” However, following the contractors’ final visit on 15 April 2024, there is no further evidence of reports of mice at the property from the resident. This suggests the landlord appropriately resolved the issue. Accordingly, the landlord’s response to the issue was reasonable.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint’s policy confirms it acknowledges stage 1 complaints by the end of the next working day and will escalate stage 2 complaints on the same day. It responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of logging the case and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the escalation.
  2. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request of 21 March 2024 in accordance with its policy. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 March 2024 as the landlord had not acknowledged his complaint. On the same day, we asked the landlord to respond. From this point, the landlord acted appropriately and telephoned the resident on 2 April to obtain the details of his complaint.
  3. In total the landlord took 47 working days to provide its stage 1 response, exceeding the timescale in its policy by 37 working days. Although it was delayed acknowledging the resident’s complaint escalation it did provide its stage 2 response within the timescale in its policy.
  4. The landlord’s complaint response told the resident to approach its solicitor for updates about his claim. This was not appropriate. No legal action had started at that time, and so, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on Pre-action Protocols for Housing Conditions Claims, the landlord should have responded fully to the issues in its complaint response rather than just refer the resident to his solicitors. That would have been especially relevant in this case because the evidence shows the landlord had taken several steps to resolve many of the issues at the earliest opportunity.
  5. The landlord offered total compensation of £90 for its complaint handling. This was in accordance with its compensation policy and considered its delay in communicating and the avoidable inconvenience caused. This was an appropriate remedy to acknowledge these complaint handling failings. However, this did not remedy it failure to fully respond to all issues.
  6. In summary, while the landlord offered appropriate remedy for the delays in providing its complaint responses, it did not act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on the Pre-action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of
    1. The resident’s reports of issues within his property, including damp and mould and asbestos.
    2. The resident’s report of mice in his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the concerns about the landlord’s handling of: the resident’s reports of no gas supply and subsequent lack of heating and hot water in his property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. In light of the complaint handling failures, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £50 within 4 weeks of this report.
  2. The landlord must ensure all appropriate staff members are reminded of the Ombudsman’s approach to Pre-Action Protocols for Housing Conditions Claims. It must provide evidence of completion of this within 6 weeks of this report.
  3. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to the Ombudsman within the stated timescales.