London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202410929)

Decision
Case ID	202410929
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. She has mental health vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of. She complained about how it handled reports about the condition of her kitchen.
The resident is represented by her son in bringing the complaint to the landlord and us. For convenience the son and the resident are referred to as “the resident” in this report.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

The resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen.
The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord acted by conducting surveys which identified repair concerns. However, it then failed to act on these findings. It did not apologise or offer any redress.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in its handling of the complaint. It apologised and offered compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 21 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 21 November 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord can not gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the kitchen of the property. This must include the condition of the units and any damp and leaks. And produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of any damp, mould or leaks. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue, together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 21 November 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the complaint is made on the basis that it pays to the resident the sum of £100 it offered in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 June 2022	The resident contacted the landlord after an inspection deemed the kitchen to be in good condition. She disagreed with its finding and requested a new kitchen and supervisor involvement. It treated this as a complaint and sent its stage 1 complaint response the same day. It said the kitchen was found to be in good condition and it was unable to inspect further or carry out improvements.
24 June 2022	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She was upset and said its contact imposed strict timescales which caused stress. She said that a previous damp and mould inspection had identified a possible leak, but no follow up action was taken. She said an earlier leak damaged the kitchen units and caused a smell. She requested supervisor involvement. She cancelled a repair for the extractor fan as she had not requested it.
25 June 2023	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, repeating its stage 1 response. In addition, it said the damp and mould inspection found no issues. It apologised for the delay in resolving the complaint which it attributed to a backlog and offered £100 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, stating the smell from the units made being in the kitchen uncomfortable. She wanted a new kitchen.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Condition of the kitchen
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident told us that she was concerned the damp smell was having an effect on her health and the complaint process had caused her stress. It would be more reasonable and more effective for her to make a claim for this through the courts. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

The resident reported that her kitchen was in poor condition on 3 April 2022. She said the units were worn, there was water damage, and a persistent damp smell. She believed this was caused by a previous leak through the extractor fan and delays resolving this. She asked the landlord to replace the kitchen due to her concerns about the effect on her health.
The landlord conducted a healthy homes assessment on 29 April 2022 to investigate concerns about damp and mould. It found possible damp behind a kitchen unit, likely from a historic leak, and a potential leak within boxed pipework. Further investigation was deemed necessary, which involved removing the unit. A separate appointment was scheduled to assess the kitchen structure. This was a positive action and in line with its repairs policy. The landlord inspected the kitchen on 14 June 2022 and found it to be in good condition, and it did not require replacement.
The landlord failed to follow up on the potential damp and leaks. It raised a job for the extractor fan, but this was already resolved so the resident cancelled it. It appears to have misunderstood the core issue, focusing on the extractor fan instead of the damp caused by earlier problems. This suggests poor record keeping which likely caused delays and worsened the issue.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 22 June 2022 confirmed it would not replace the kitchen. It again failed to address the damp and leak. It should have arranged a full inspection and carried out necessary repairs based on its findings. It would have been good practice to manage the resident’s expectations at this point by confirming when a replacement might occur under planned works.
The resident escalated her complaint, noting increasing health concerns. The landlord failed to act or respond for over a year. In its stage 2 response it incorrectly said the damp and mould team found no issues and repeated it would not replace the kitchen. It overlooked the potential damp and leak. The delay was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, which aims to complete repairs within 25 days. It did not acknowledge its failings or demonstrate any learning from the complaint. We have made orders to reflect this.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlord’s to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The resident was unhappy that her contact was treated as a complaint, saying it caused stress. While the Code says any expression of dissatisfaction can be treated as a complaint, good practice would have been for the landlord to confirm whether the resident wanted to raise one.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response in line with its complaints policy timescales. However, it took over a year to send its stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged this failure and made a reasonable offer of redress, in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Landlords must be able to identify the difference between a service request and a complaint. If the landlord was unsure whether a resident’s concerns were a complaint or a service request, it should have clarified this with her at the time. This may have avoided confusion and saved the resident time and trouble.

Landlords must keep clear records to demonstrate fair and reasonable responses to issues. In this case, poor record-keeping led to avoidable delays, highlighting the need for more effective systems.