Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202417670)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417670

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

2 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Damp and mould in the resident’s temporary property.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. She lives with her 2 adult children. She told the landlord she and her children have health conditions. Her conditions include Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (which affects her breathing ability), an abnormal heart rhythm, and depression. Her children both have asthma, eczema and depression.
  2. The landlord temporarily housed the resident (known as decanting) so it could repair her permanent property. She signed a licence agreement for the temporary property, which began on 2 October 2023. The resident said she told the landlord the temporary property was mouldy about a month after moving in, but we have no evidence of this.
  3. The landlord inspected the property on 19 February 2024. It said it found no structural issues, but recommended works to insulate the boiler pipes and wash the mould off. It advised the resident to control the heating to a constant temperature between 16 to 21 degrees. The landlord confirmed it did a mould wash on 24 February 2024.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 26 March 2024. She said the property was mouldy, particularly the bathroom which she said was “full with black mould”. She said it was affecting hers and her children’s health. She said she could not turn the heating up too high as it affected her breathing.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 25 April 2024. It explained what works it had done and intended to do, including insulating her kitchen pipes. It also gave advice on what she could do to avoid problems with damp and mould, such as using the extractor fans when cooking. It apologised for the inconvenience the repairs had caused and offered £120 compensation.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s first response and escalated her complaint on 2 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 28 June 2024 and responded on 13 August 2024. It apologised for its delay in responding. It said it thought the damp and mould might be caused by a leak, but its plumbers could not find one. It said it requested a roofer to investigate further. It apologised and offered a further £160 compensation.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the outcome of her complaint and escalated it to us. When investigating her complaint in September 2025, we contacted the landlord and the resident. The resident confirmed she moved out of the temporary property in November 2024. She wanted the landlord to explain why it failed offer her a dehumidifier and resolve the damp and mould. She said it had worsened up until the point she left.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and/or illness claims. We cannot decide causation or liability like a court can. However, we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s temporary property

  1. The landlord’s records are unclear about when the resident first reported the damp and mould. Its records show the whole property needed a mould wash “in 20 working days” on 10 January 2024. However, there is no evidence it completed the work within that timeframe. Instead, it inspected the property 28 working days later on 19 February 2024. It then cleaned the mould on 24 February 2024.
  2. The landlord delayed assessing and treating the damp and mould, it assessed the property 28 working days after its records show it was reported. It then did a mould wash 13 working days after its assessment. This was against its policy which says “All reports of damp and mould are given an appointment for a Healthy Homes assessment within 5 days of reporting. This assessment includes a full clean and shield for any visible damp and mould patches and the installation of humidity sensors”.
  3. Repair works can be unavoidably delayed for various reasons. However, where works cannot be completed within planned timeframes, we expect landlords to keep residents fully updated throughout. They should consider if there is anything they can do to mitigate any impact the delays might have on the resident. We have not seen any evidence the landlord kept the resident updated, or that it considered any temporary remedies, such as providing dehumidifiers. Given the resident has health issues that may be impacted by damp and mould, this was unreasonable.
  4. Our Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021) says, “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. In this case, when the landlord assessed the damp and mould on 19 February 2024 it recommended insulating the kitchen pipes. Its policies say it will raise repairs within 10 days and prioritise health and safety repairs where residents may be vulnerable. However, the landlord did not consider doing the work until after the resident complained on 26 March 2024. Its failure to consider this and act sooner was not in line with its policies.
  5. It is evident the situation had been distressing for the resident. When escalating her complaint on 2 June 2024, she said she followed the landlord’s advice about ventilating the property, but the mould had returned. She said, “we no longer have use of a toilet or washing facilities”. The landlord confirmed in its visit on 4 July 2024 she had been following its advice by ventilating the property, as she was opening windows and using the extractor. It suggested there may be a leak coming from the roof.
  6. The landlord recognised its service failed in both of its complaint responses. It acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities and the distress the issue caused her. In its final response on 13 August 2024, it said it requested a roofer to inspect but did not know when this would be. However, its complaint response and records are conflicting. Its records say it booked the roof inspection as “daylight graining through” and “leak into bathroom, ceiling is wet and damaged”. They say it inspected her property on 13 August 2024 (the same day as its final complaint response). The records say, “no problem with roof just a damp issue”. However, there is no evidence it communicated its findings to the resident.
  7. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress it offered to put things right was reasonable and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the redress was in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  8. In this case, we found maladministration because the landlord failed to resolve the complaint as it did not show it “put things right” for the resident. She reported ongoing issues when she escalated the case to us in September 2024. She sent photographs to us which suggest the damp and mould had worsened. She said she followed the landlord’s advice by ventilating the property, but it did not find the root cause of the dampness. The landlord agreed to get a roofer to inspect the property in its final complaint response. However, it did not communicate the outcome of the inspection to the resident. This leaves the complaint unresolved.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £240 compensation for the inconvenience and for her “time and effort”. Our guidance on remedies suggests compensation between £100 and £600 where there is evidence of service failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. In this case the resident said the mould worsened after the landlord’s complaint response and the photographs she provided suggest this was the case. She said she was unable to use the bathroom (including the toilet) and instead used a bucket and washed in the kitchen sink.
  10. The landlord’s compensation offer is disproportionally low. It did not resolve the issues through its complaints process or fully consider the impact on the resident. We consider £500 to be appropriate for the frustration and inconvenience caused in this case. This is in line with our remedies guidance where the “landlord acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation”.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. It says it will acknowledge both stage 1 and 2 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 complies with our Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code).
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint on 26 March 2024 was delayed. It acknowledged the complaint on 27 March 2024, and sent its response 21 working days later, on 25 April 2024.This was outside its 10-working day policy timescale, and there is no evidence it agreed to extend its response time.
  3. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and complained again on 2 June 2024. Two days later, on 4 June 2024, the landlord correctly said her complaint repeated her previous one. It said instead of creating a new one she could escalate it, which she did. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to her escalated complaint within its policy timescales. It acknowledged the complaint on 28 June 2024, which was a delay of 18 working days, and responded 33 working days later on 13 August 2024. These responses were outside of its policy timescales, and the Code.
  4. In summary, we found service failure in this case. It is clear the resident was frustrated with the landlord’s delayed response, as she chased it on 17 June 2024. The landlord apologised and offered £40 compensation for the delay in its final complaint response. The apologies and compensation went part way towards putting things right. However, its offer was disproportionately low compared to our remedies guidance where there is evidence of service failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s temporary property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order and Recommendation

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £600 to the resident by 31 October 2025. This amount is inclusive of the £280 it has already offered the resident, so it may deduct this if it has already been paid. This amount is comprised of:
    1. £500 in recognition of damp and mould in the resident’s temporary property.
    2. £100 in recognition of its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of complying with this order by its deadline.

Recommendation

  1. The resident told us she would like the landlord to explain why it did not provide any temporary remedies (such as dehumidifiers). She would also like it to explain what it did to resolve the ongoing issues with damp and mould following her final complaint response.  We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to provide this information.