London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202417059)

Decision
Case ID	202417059
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

In 2023 the resident reported that a bedroom floor had dropped, and there was mould under the living room floor. She complained in February 2024 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. And said that contractors were not professional. Also, her family had experienced more frequent chest infections due to the damp and mould. The landlord offered compensation and said it would replace the downstairs floors. After the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord upheld it and offered the same compensation. The resident is not happy with the quality of the repairs, and the time taken to complete them.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. The condition of the property, and the associated repairs.
2. Staff conduct.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, and the associated repairs.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, and the associated repairs

The landlord did not keep clear records relating to repairs and did not give clear timelines on when it would complete them. It did not address kitchen floor repairs within a reasonable time which led to added distress and inconvenience for the resident. It offered alternative accommodation options to support the resident’s needs when it realised works would be disruptive.

The resident’s concerns about staff conduct

The landlord apologised for the resident’s experience and committed to addressing her concerns with the staff involved.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not keep clear records of correspondence associated with the complaint. It also presented unclear compensation information.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £1198.45 made up as follows: £498.45 as offered during the complaint process. £650 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays with repairs to the kitchen floor and the landlord’s poor record keeping. £50 to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience due to the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 27 March 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must arrange for a suitably qualified person to assess all floorboards, sub-floor ventilation and concrete floors in the property. If it finds any issues it must plan for repair and share this with the resident and us. The landlord must complete any identified repairs within 4 weeks of the survey and send us proof of completion.	No later than 27 March 2026
4	Learning review The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with an action plan setting out how it will improve its record‑keeping. The plan should include: steps for ensuring it correctly logs all stages of repairs how it records repeated or failed works how it records supervisory checks any proposed staff training or system changes to prevent similar issues how it will log complaint acknowledgements and escalations The landlord must provide us with a copy of this plan by the due date.	No later than 24 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 February 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had reported a leak, and the landlord said it would attend on 26 February 2024. She had also tried to install a carpet but found that the sub-floor was damp and mouldy. This prevented her from using the existing flooring in another room. She was also unhappy with the conduct of the contractors. To resolve the complaint, she wanted compensation for the floor, and for the landlord to do the repairs.
19 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said that it visited to do repairs, but the resident refused. A surveyor attended on 12 February 2024 and found a small amount of moisture in the living room. A joiner also found rotten joists in the living room, so it promised to replace them and the floorboards on 21 March 2024. It also said that the kitchen floor needed replacing. It apologised for any inconvenience. It awarded £498.45 compensation which it said was made up of:  49 days room loss (living room)– £198.45 (1st Feb-25th March)  Inconvenience – £100  Time and effort – £100
9 May 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
25 June 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It apologised that the response was late and confirmed that it had agreed an extended response time with the resident. It acknowledged the resident’s concern that the property was unliveable, and that she felt damp and mould had affected her children’s health. It confirmed that it did re-screed the kitchen floor but as it was not level it had to do it again. The landlord confirmed that it had considered a temporary move while repairs took place but due to the family’s needs, it would instead look at a permanent move. It upheld the complaint and offered an additional £100 compensation for time and trouble.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs. She said her living room floor is still uneven, and other floors including the kitchen needed replacing multiple times.

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 resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, and the associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s internal notes and the information it provided confirm that it re‑screeded the kitchen floor more than once because the screed did not set level. This is consistent with its repairs policy which confirms that the landlord is responsible for screed and floorboards. However, the formal repair records only show 1 kitchen floor repair, completed on 4 June 2025. The records do not confirm when any further screeding took place or how many attempts were made. Although the records refer to replacement floor coverings in February 2024, they do not link this to any screeding work.
It is unclear when the landlord first became aware that the kitchen floor had not set correctly. The evidence also does not show how long it took the landlord to re‑lay the screed after finding the issue. Based on the confirmed re‑screeding date of 4 June 2025, there were 338 working days between the resident’s complaint and completion of the repair. The length of time taken, and the gaps in the records, show that the landlord did not progress or document these repairs appropriately.
The landlord did not consider compensation for the disruption caused by the kitchen floor works. The evidence does not show how long the resident lost access to the area, but it is reasonable to expect some disruption while the landlord excavated the floor, applied new screed, and allowed for drying time. Compensation is appropriate to recognise the resident’s time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident that the mould issues to the living room floor would not have been visible without lifting the laminate. This was a reasonable position, as the evidence does not show any visible signs of deterioration before the laminate was removed. The landlord said it would renew several joists and floorboards.
The repair record says that the landlord repaired the living room floor and skirting boards on 21 March 2024. The resident has told us that the floor is still uneven. And it is still unclear whether it has checked the floor since the original repair. It was reasonable, however, for the landlord to offer compensation based on room loss given the time it took to complete the repair.
The resident told the landlord that she lifted the laminate to replace it with carpet, as she hoped this would improve the heat in the room. She also hoped to reuse the laminate elsewhere, as it had been a gift from her late father. When she found that it was damaged, she asked the landlord to compensate her for the flooring.
The landlord told the resident that she could make a claim through its insurer. It could also have recommended that she contact her contents insurer. This was consistent with its compensation policy, as the landlord could not reasonably have known about the damp and mould without the laminate being lifted.
The resident told the landlord about her mental and physical health conditions in her original complaint. We have seen a doctor’s report saying that her anxiety increased due to the issues in the property, including damp and the lack of a usable living room. However, the evidence does not confirm the date of the report or when the landlord received it.
In June 2024, the landlord tried to find a permanent alternative property for the resident. It agreed that a temporary move could destabilise the family due to their needs. The landlord offered 2 properties, but both were unsuitable. The resident then chose to remain in her home. It was positive that the landlord considered a permanent move and recognised the potential impact on the family.
For the reasons set out in this report, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen and living room floors. While it was positive that the landlord offered compensation for the living room, it took over a year for the kitchen floor to be fully repaired. It offered no compensation for this element of the complaint. During that time there was repeated disruption to the household and at times, reduced usage of the kitchen. The landlord did not keep accurate repair records, did not complete the kitchen floor repairs within a reasonable time, and did not fully consider the resident’s circumstances when assessing compensation.

Complaint	The resident’s concerns about staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

The resident raised concerns in her original complaint about the attitude of a surveyor and a joiner who visited her property. She said that they were speaking on the phone, saying that they did not believe her statement that she had tripped and injured herself.
She felt this was rude and dismissive, considering the landlord was aware of her health issues. The landlord told her that it took concerns about staff conduct seriously, would investigate, and take appropriate action.
It said that it would not disclose any action taken to protect the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rights of the staff members. This is reasonable, as it is not appropriate to disclose personal data, including any disciplinary records, of its staff. It apologised for the resident’s experience and the fact that she had to bring a complaint to bring the behaviour to its attention.
From the landlord’s records we can see that there were no additional complaints regarding staff conduct, and the resident did not raise the matter at stage 2.
For the reasons above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The Complaint Handling Code (1 April 2024) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. It also requires landlords to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, and a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of the stage 2 acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects these requirements.
The Code also says that landlords must acknowledge, define and log complaints within 5 days of receipt. Despite our requests, we have not seen evidence of the landlord’s formal complaint acknowledgements. We have not seen a copy of the resident’s escalation request, although internal records refer to one being made.
We have also seen no record of the landlord contacting the resident to agree an extension to the stage 2 timescale, despite it referring to such a conversation in its response.
The landlord listed the compensation incorrectly at stage 1, which makes it difficult to confirm whether it offered the same amount at each stage. At both stages it stated that the total offer was £498.45. However, the breakdown at stage 1 totalled £398.45 and the breakdown at stage 2 totalled £498.45. The landlord did not explain whether the revised breakdown with an extra £100 at stage 2 corrected the earlier figures or whether it intended to increase the overall offer to £598.45.
The complaint responses addressed the points raised by the resident and provided detail. However, it did not consistently set out a clear timeline for the proposed outcomes, such as the timescales for repairs. Its compensation calculation was also unclear which may have led to additional confusion or frustration for the resident.
For the reasons above, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s poor record keeping affected almost every element of this investigation. The repair records do not match the events listed in the complaint responses, particularly with reference to how many times it repaired the kitchen floor. There is no record of complaint acknowledgements, and its compensation figures were inconsistent between stage 1 and 2 of the complaint.

Communication

The communication we can see about a potential property move was clear and detailed; however, we do not have a full and comprehensive record of communication between the landlord and resident.