London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202411373)

Decision
Case ID	202411373
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	25 February 2026

Background

1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord does not own the freehold of the building. A management company manages the building on behalf of the freeholder. The landlord told us it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident reports that she has asthma and that her health has been affected by damp and mould. The evidence shows that she has informed the landlord of this on a number of occasions. The resident has raised issues with the damp and mould in her property and communal areas.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould in the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould in the property.
5. We have found that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould

6. We found that the landlord:
   1. did not share the management company’s position on the damp and mould with the resident.
   2. failed to explain its response to the recommendation from our previous damp and mould complaint report when the resident queried its inaction.
   3. did not clarify that the resident was responsible for internal repairs or update her on the outcome of a surveyor’s inspection of her property.
   4. delayed in responding to the resident’s concerns and advising her to report damp issues in communal areas to the management company.
   5. did not contact the management company after the resident continued to raise concerns about damp in communal areas.
   6. failed to make a referral to surveyors and update the resident after it told her it would do this.
   7. exceeded its repairs timescales to complete a work order.
   8. failed to maintain records to show the action taken to complete work orders or if they were outstanding.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. There were delays in the landlord escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 and then providing a stage 2 response. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay in providing a stage 2 response and offered an appropriate amount of compensation for this.

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	The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: 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 26 March 2026
2	The landlord must pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of ongoing damp and mould in the property (this amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £200). 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 26 March 2026
3	The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her vulnerabilities and update its records accordingly.	No later than 26 March 2026
4	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 a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot 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.   The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:  inspects the building for water leaks and rising damp, paying particular attention to the car park below the resident’s property and the gas meter storage area. inspects the communal corridor where the resident’s flat is located for damp. produces a written report with photographs.    The survey report must set out:    whether there is water leaking or rising damp in the building and the most likely cause of this. whether there is damp in the communal corridor. 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). if the landlord is not responsible, any plans it has to achieve a resolution, such as liaising with the management company.  the likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 26 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord is to pay the resident £120 for its complaint handling failures (if it has not already done so). Our finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling depends on this amount being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 February 2024	The resident raised her complaint. She said: she had to move out of the flat for a year due to damp and mould and the effect on her health. During this time the flat was treated for damp and mould at her expense. since moving back in November 2023 her health conditions had returned and there was a “musty smell” in the kitchen. other communal areas of the block had been treated for extensive damp, but the corridor her flat was on was not treated. she wanted the landlord to give her alternative accommodation until it found a permanent solution.
23 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
26 February 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for her trouble, and said it would provide an update on resolving the damp and mould by 11 March 2024.
Between 27 February and 1 March 2024	The resident emailed the landlord 3 times. She said: the issues required further investigation from the landlord and the management company. she had been advised to move out and was continuing to pay rent on a property she could not live in. the landlord had not acted on the recommendation from our previous damp and mould complaint report in 2022 regarding potential rising damp in the neighbouring car park. significant damp had been treated in the block, yet nobody had investigated for water leaks. a surveyor investigating inside the flat would not resolve the issue, as the landlord needed to address the damp in the building immediately surrounding the flat. she wanted to escalate her complaint.
1 March 2024	The landlord told the resident she could not escalate her complaint to stage 2 without the stage 1 decision. It confirmed its surveyor would inspect on 4 March 2024. It said once it had the report it could provide an outcome at stage 1.
12 March 2024	The landlord told the resident that the management team were reviewing the surveyor’s report.
12 April 2024	The resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2, as it had not addressed the damp and mould and had made no indication that it would.
15 April 2024	The landlord confirmed that it had escalated the resident’s complaint. It said it had a high volume of cases awaiting stage 2 review which would affect timescales.
21 May 2024	The landlord informed the resident that it had allocated her case for review at stage 2. It said it would provide its decision no later than 19 June 2024.   The resident responded by repeating that mould was coming from the damp immediately surrounding her flat and that the landlord had still not investigated this.
19 June 2024	The landlord apologised that resident had not received the stage 2 response and for the issues she was experiencing with damp and mould. It advised the resident to report issues with damp in communal areas to the management company. It said it had made a referral for a surveyor to inspect and would update her when it had a response.
21 and 25 June 2024	The resident said that her builder had uncovered further damp throughout the property. She chased the stage 2 response. She said damp had come straight through the first coat of freshly applied paint in an area next to the external corridor where there were issues with damp.
3 July 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It apologised for its inadequate communication and actions. It said: several inspections by external and internal contractors had taken place and the last one on 4 March 2024 showed no evidence of damp and mould under the kitchen and the cupboard. it had arranged an inspection for the vent and external parts of the building for 19 July 2024 and had raised a task for its surveyor to assess the report and advise on any follow up actions. it apologised for the delayed stage 2 response and was awarding compensation as follows: time and effort getting the complaint resolved: £60. service failure for the 3-month delay in providing a stage 2 response: £60 (£20 x 3 months). distress and inconvenience: £200 (£40 x 5 months). total: £320.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said: the landlord had not provided the report referred to in its stage 2 response. she wanted the landlord to acknowledge that there are damp and mould issues in the property and the effect this had on her. she wanted to be refunded for her repair expenses.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

8. The resident told us that the damp and mould issues had caused her asthma and ill-health. 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.

What we did investigate

9. The landlord’s records show that the management company’s contractor visited on 14 December 2023 to investigate a leak into your flat. The resident suspected it was coming from Flat 14 above. The contractor identified a significant amount of condensation on the pipes. The contractor reported that they could not complete a full investigation because the resident asked them to leave, disagreeing with the suggestion that the issue was condensation rather than a communal problem causing a leak.
10. A leak detection survey was completed on 8 January 2024. This appears to have been arranged through the resident’s insurance. This found that the escape of water was from the flush cone concealed cistern in the bathroom of Flat 14. The flush cone had now been replaced and the leak had stopped.
11. Following the resident’s complaint in February 2024, the landlord contacted the management company to respond to her request for a report confirming there was no damp and mould in the block. This was in line with our spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with managing agents, which recommends landlords ensure third parties provide clear information on decisions. The lease also states that the landlord would try to ensure that the management company complied with its obligations.
12. On 27 February 2024, the management company told the landlord that the landlord was responsible for investigating the issue as the property owner. The management company said that it would not investigate without clear evidence it was caused by anything other than condensation. The landlord did not share this information with the resident.
13. On 29 February 2024, the resident highlighted the recommendation from our previous damp and mould complaint report in 2022 to investigate potential rising damp in the neighbouring car park. She said she had received no confirmation that the landlord had investigated this, and the area referred to in the report was directly below her flat. This was a recommendation the landlord did not have to act on it. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to clarify its position on this but it did not do so.
14. The landlord arranged a surveyor’s inspection for 4 March 2024. It acted promptly in doing so following the resident’s complaint and the response from the management company. The inspection found that:
    1. there was no visible evidence of damp or mould or leaks in the kitchen area, or other evidence of mould or damp issues within the property.
    2. there were no leaks or dampness found in intake cupboards, but a large amount of water was found in the gas meter cupboard below. This appeared to be caused by rain overflowing through a hatch at the rear of the property.
    3. the slight smell was due to a lack of ventilation in the kitchen/dining room area.
    4. there were no noted moisture readings in the communal hallway next to the resident’s kitchen.
15. The surveyor recommended the installation of an extractor fan in the kitchen/dining room area to assist with ventilation. They also said the resident had asked for the removal of the kitchen base unit to check for mould, but both were the resident’s responsibility as a shared owner. As these were internal repairs, this was correct in line with the terms of the lease. However, although the landlord updated the resident on 12 March 2024,it did not inform her of this or of the outcome of the surveyor’s inspection.
16. On 12 March 2024, the landlord raised a job for the vent cover on the ventilation shaft, as it was allowing rainwater leaks and the flooding of the gas meters. It informed the resident that it had assigned this to its contractor on 22 March 2024. The landlord’s repair records show that it replaced this job to inspect for water leaks on 21 June 2024.It marked this replacement job as “finished” on 9 August 2024, which was 150 calendar days after the job was first raised in March 2024. This was a significant breach of the 25-calendar-day aim to complete routine repairs in the landlord’s repairs policy. Additionally, the records do not confirm the action taken to complete this job, and the job raised in March 2024 was still marked as “outstanding” as of November 2024.
17. The resident raised concerns about damp in the communal areas directly surrounding her flat again on 12 April and 21 May 2024. She also said she had not received a response about her request to remove the kitchen units. The landlord did not respond until 19 June 2024. This was an unreasonable delay. There is no evidence that the landlord made a referral to a surveyor and updated the resident as it stated it would. Additionally, the delay in the landlord advising the resident to report communal damp issues to the management company until June 2024 was unreasonable. The landlord also did not inform the resident that the kitchen units were her responsibility.
18. The resident continued to raise concerns about damp on 21 and 25 June 2024. She repeated this was coming from outside her flat. She queried what the landlord would do with the management company to investigate this and fully resolve the issues. The resident had continuously raised concerns about damp in a communal area affecting her flat. Although the management company had confirmed its position on this, the landlord had only contacted it once and did not do so again. The landlord could have contacted the management company again about this in line with the lease.
19. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 July 2024. It outlined the findings from the surveyor’s inspection of 4 March 2024. It has not, however, provided any evidence of it completing the vent and external parts inspection the stage 2 response said it would do on 19 July 2024, or of it arranging for a surveyor to assess the report from this as it also stated. The resident chased this on 31 July 2024. The landlord did not respond. Additionally, the landlord’s stage 2 response said that its surveyor had recommended the installation of an extractor fan. However, it did not clarify that this was the resident’s responsibility as it was an internal repair.
20. The landlord awarded £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience. However, it did not say if this was for the issues with damp and mould or complaint handling. Therefore, we have considered this was for its handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould in her property because the rest of the compensation it awarded mentioned its complaint handling. This does not, however, adequately reflect the effect the landlord’s failings had on the resident under our remedy’s guidance. The resident has said she is unable to live at the property due to the ongoing issues. Although it has raised jobs for this, it is unclear from the landlord’s records what action it has taken to assess potential water ingress into the building.
21. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £300 further compensation (a total of £500). This is to increase its distress and inconvenience award, so it is in line with the higher end of our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that adversely affected the resident to more adequately reflect their effect on her. We have also ordered the landlord to contact her to arrange a surveyor’s inspection to produce a written report about the presence of, causes and responsibilities for, and works required by it for leaks and damp in her building.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Reasonable redress

22. The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 26 February 2024. This was in line with the 10-working-day response timescale stated in its complaints policy for the resident’s 22 February 2024 stage 1 complaint after it acknowledged this the next day. However, it refused the resident’s escalation request of 1 March 2024 stating that it had not sent a stage 1 response yet.
23. The resident asked to escalate her complaint again on 12 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 15 April 2024 but warned of potential delays. Even so, the landlord’s records show that there was confusion over whether it had escalated the complaint. The landlord told the resident on 21 May 2024 that it would provide a response by 19 June 2024. However, it did not do this. By this point it had gone beyond the 20 working days outlined in its complaints policy to provide a response at stage 2.
24. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 July 2024, which was 56 working days after the resident’s first escalation request. It apologised for the delayed response at stage 2. It is unclear if it included the delay in escalating the complaint in this. However, the landlord offered £120 compensation for its complaint handling, made up of £60 each for time and effort getting the complaint resolved and delaying the stage 2 response. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failures adversely affecting the resident. Therefore, we have not ordered the landlord to pay any further compensation because we have found it offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord has not provided evidence of all inspection reports or completed works. Some of its repairs records are unclear and do not detail the nature or outcome of the works completed. At times, this has affected our ability to assess its actions. The landlord also failed to recognise that it had issued a stage 1 response and refused to escalate the resident’s complaint.

Communication

26. The landlord delayed in providing the outcome of the surveyor’s inspection to the resident. It also failed to update the resident when it said it would. The landlord demonstrated a lack of oversight of its contractors, which may have contributed to the failings identified.

Previous recommendations

27. The Ombudsman’s previous special investigation report recommended the landlord review its policy and practice in relation to repairs and complaint handling and its staff’s learning and development on record keeping and communication. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous special investigation’s recommendations, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.