London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202417733)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417733

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

13 October 2025

Amended 26 January 2026

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to condensation and the associated damp and mould.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property which is a 3 bedroom flat. The resident told the landlord that he has “severe asthma” and his 3 year old daughter has cancer. He also has a baby who was a newborn at the time of the complaint.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord in July 2024. He was unhappy with the timeframe given by the landlord to repair an extractor fan. He also said that the landlord had not done anything to improve ventilation following a finding by a surveyor in December 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 1 and advised it had moved the work for the extractor fan to an earlier date. It offered compensation for distress and inconvenience. The resident did not escalate this complaint.
He made another complaint to the landlord in January 2025 as there was still damp and mould in the property. The landlord combined both complaints as they related to condensation and damp and mould. It responded to both at stage 2. It acknowledged that the work identified by the surveyor had not been done. It would review works required and treat the mould. It offered further compensation.
The resident referred his complaint to us. He said the work had not been carried out and the landlord had told him the work was too expensive. He told us that he had used dehumidifier, but it cost too much to run.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us that the damp and mould impacted the health of the household. 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.

The landlord’s response to condensation and the associated damp and mould

Before moving into the property around August 2023, the resident raised his concerns to the landlord about mould in the property. The landlord told him the mould was caused by the property being empty.
After he moved in, the resident raised concerns on 4 December 2023 about large amounts of condensation on the windows. In response to this, the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 20 December 2023. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that following such a report, it will attend to assess within 20 working days. The landlord carried out the assessment within 12 working days. This was in line with its policy.
The damp and mould inspection found as follows:
1. There was high humidity and inadequate ventilation.
2. The kitchen and bathroom extractor fans were inefficient.
3. The resident had done a good job at treating the mould so further mould treatment was not needed.
4. It recommended the extractor fans be replaced and that the property could benefit from a positive input ventilation (PIV) system.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 22 January 2024. They recorded that both extractor fans were working and no action was needed. We have seen that the surveyor had explained that the fans were working but inefficient. As such, the contractor’s finding that they were working did not address the concern raised by the surveyor. The landlord did not acknowledge this or investigate this matter any further. This was a missed opportunity to try to resolve the issue.
The resident made a complaint on 31 July 2024. This is referred to as complaint A in this investigation. He said nothing had been done to improve the ventilation and the extractor fan was not working properly. He felt the arrangements to repair the fan on 29 August 2024 was too long. He said the landlord had not prioritised the repair in light of his daughter’s heath.
In response, the landlord asked the contractor if they could expedite the work. This demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns on board. The contractor did so and they renewed the kitchen extractor fan on 12 August 2024.
It is not clear when the resident first reported the extractor fan not working properly. However, we have seen that this work was completed 8 working days after he raised his concern within the complaint. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days. As such, this timeframe and the landlord’s prioritisation of the work was reasonable and was what the resident had asked for.
The landlord responded at stage 1 to complaint A on 13 August 2024. It said as follows:
1. It apologised that its support had not met the resident’s expectations.
2. As per the type of repair, it had scheduled the extractor fan work to be completed within 20 working days. Following the resident’s concerns, it had completed this sooner.
3. It offered £40 compensation for the substantive matter, made up as follows:
  1. £20 distress for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
  2. £20 inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
The resident reported to the landlord in September 2024 that the kitchen extractor fan was making noise. The landlord re-set the fan in October 2024. It offered an additional £30 compensation for the inconvenience.
In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer further compensation in respect of the kitchen extractor fan, given a further repair was needed. This acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident. This brought its total offer of compensation for the issue of the extractor fan raised in complaint A to £70. The landlord’s offer of compensation for complaint handing has been considered separately below.
The resident made another complaint to the landlord on 17 January 2025. This is referred to as complaint B. The resident said there was still damp and mould in the property. He said this had impacted the family’s health and caused distress. He said there was mould on furniture, curtains and walls.
In response to this, the landlord carried out another damp and mould inspection on 11 February 2025. This was 17 working days after the resident’s complaint. This was in line with the timeframe set out in the landlord’s damp and mould policy. The surveyor recommended that the kitchen extractor fan be renewed. The resident subsequently expressed his disappointment that this work had been booked for March 2025. He explained that his newborn had been taken to hospital with breathing complications.
The landlord installed a new kitchen extractor fan on 10 March 2025. This was 19 working days after it’s inspection, which identified a new fan was required. As such, this was in line with the timeframe for a routine repair as stated in its repairs policy.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 12 March 2025. Although the resident had not escalated complaint A, the landlord incorporated complaints A and B in its response. It said as follows:
1. It apologised that there had been a further issue with the kitchen extractor fan and that work identified in December 2023 had not been actioned.
2. A contractor had advised on 4 March 2025 that window seals be replaced. It would review work required to the windows and make sure required works were completed. Following this it would carry out a mould wash.
3. It signposted the resident to its insurance team in respect of damage to belongings and personal injury.
4. It offered a total of £640 compensation for the substantive issues. This was made up as follows:
  1. £320 for distress caused by the failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
  2. £320 for inconvenience caused by the failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s combined consideration of the issues dating back to those identified by its surveyor in 2023, and those raised in complaint A, was reasonable. This is because the issues were linked to the resident’s ongoing concerns of condensation and damp and mould. This also gave the landlord the opportunity to investigate its failures over the period along with the resident’s concerns as a whole.
Our investigation identified failures in the landlord’s handling of the substantive matter in the following ways:
1. The landlord did not demonstrate it considered the option of installing a PIV unit following the recommendation of its surveyor.
2. The landlord acknowledged that it had not carried out some works identified by its surveyor. However, it did not explain what, if any action it would take in respect of this.
3. The landlord’s contractor did not appropriately investigate the efficiency of the extractor fans following this being initially identified by the surveyor.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
Ordinarily, we only consider events up until the date of the landlord’s final complaint response, which in this case was 12 March 2025. However, we can also consider how the landlord handled any associated remedial actions promised within its response.
As part of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, dated 12 March 2025, the landlord confirmed that the recommendations made by the contractor had been declined. It said that the property surveying team would review the area when it was attended to on 14 March 2025 and any repairs would be referred to its contractor for completion. In order to monitor this, the landlord said that it had raised a complaints action task for the area surveyor to ensure follow on works were booked and followed up in a timely manner.
This was a positive step as landlords should have an effective process in place to ensure works are completed within a reasonable timescale. This is because in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, a landlord has a duty to ensure that it carried out a full and effective repair as soon as it was on notice.
On review of the landlord’s repair records, it is not clear whether an inspection was completed on 14 March 2025, however, CRM notes say ‘Approval declined….due to length of time required to complete works’. Repairs were raised and a repair record (ref 6275006-5) shows that an operative attended on 2 April 2025 and confirmed that there was an issue with condensation due to poor ventilation from the trickle vents. It was referred to a supervisor to follow up, who will inspect and decide the next course of action.
It is unclear why the landlord chose to raise an additional inspection for 2 April 2025 as it had already attended on 11 February 2025 and inspected the windows, and instructed an independent contractor to survey the windows, who had provided recommendations following a visit on 4 March 2025, which the landlord had rejected.
We acknowledge that certain repairs may legitimately require more than one visit to diagnose and resolve an issue, repeated inspections that do not lead to any meaningful action or progress create unnecessary inconvenience and distress for residents.
In January 2026, the landlord confirmed that a follow on job had been raised to the same independent contractor to complete works to your windows. However, it had yet to be booked in. The landlord also confirmed that it had asked the supervisor to approve the quote and get the works booked in as soon as possible.
It is concerning that the works have not been completed, despite it reassuring the resident in March 2025 that it would ‘ensure the follow-on works were booked and completed promptly’. This has not happened and was a failing.
Landlords are expected to have a robust and effective system to ensure that all identified works are completed within a reasonable timescale. They must also ensure that the resolutions and actions set out within their complaint responses are actively monitored and followed through. In this case, the landlord did not fulfil those obligations, resulting in avoidable delay and a failure to deliver the remedy it had agreed.
In this case, it is of particular concern that your issues with damp and mould were not proactively monitored, especially given that the landlord was aware that your daughter had cancer and had received evidence from external professionals raising concerns about the potential impact on her health. In such circumstances, the landlord should have taken a more vigilant and responsive approach to both monitoring and remedying the reported issues.
While the landlord considered the overall effect of its failures on the resident and offered a total of £710 compensation for the substantive issues raised in complaints A and B, this amount does not take into account its failure to follow up with what it promised to put things right. Therefore, a new order has been made.
It is worthy of note that our investigation has also found that the landlord’s handling of the matter was appropriate in the following ways:
1. It responded to the reports of damp and mould in line with the timeframes set out in its damp and mould policy and its repairs policy.
2. It expedited work on this basis.

It appropriately signposted the resident to its insurer for personal injury and damage to possessions.

In conclusion, while the landlord identified failings with its handling initially and attempted to put things right, it did not fulfil the commitments set out in its stage 2 complaint response. The delays, unclear decision‑making, and lack of proactive monitoring—particularly in light of the known health vulnerabilities within the household—represent a significant failure in service and therefore we have made a finding of maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that at stage 1 of its complaints process it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will subsequently respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If additional time is needed at either stage, it will keep the resident informed.
The resident submitted complaint A on 31 July 2024 about the lack of ventilation. The landlord acknowledged this on 2 August 2024. This was within the timeframe of its complaints policy. It subsequently responded at stage 1 on 13 August 2024. This was 7 working days after its acknowledgement. As such, the landlord responded to this in line with its complaints policy. Despite there being no failures in its handling of this, it appropriately recognised the inconvenience of raising the complaint on the resident and offered him £20 compensation. The resident did not escalate this complaint.
The resident submitted complaint B on 17 January 2025 as the damp and mould was ongoing. The landlord noted on its internal system on 21 January 2025 that it had reactivated complaint A and escalated this to stage 2. It told the resident it would respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. It subsequently told the resident on 28 January 2025 that it had incorrectly escalated the complaint to stage 2.
The resident chased a response to complaint B in February 2025. In March 2025 he contacted the landlord about his concerns for his newborn’s health. The landlord told him he could escalate his complaint to stage 2. In response the resident asked if the landlord had provided a stage 1 response. The landlord told him it had escalated complaint B that day, 18 February 2025.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 12 March 2025. This was 38 working days from when the resident made complaint B. This complaint response addressed the substantive issues raised in complaints A and B. It acknowledged complaint handling failures and offered £150 compensation as follows:
1. £100 time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
2. £50 poor complaint handling.
When considering the compensation together with the compensation offered at stage 1 for complaint A, the landlord’s total offer of compensation for complaint handling was £170.
The landlord’s handling of complaint B was confusing. It was apparent that the landlord did not know whether to treat this as an escalation request for complaint A or treat it as a new complaint. This led to confusion for the resident who was given mixed messages about how the landlord would handle and respond to the complaint.
Despite this, we do note that the landlord’s complaints policy sets out a total combined duration of its internal complaints policy as 40 days. Although the landlord’s compliant handling was confusing, its consideration of complaint B was completed within this overall timeframe. As such, although the failures caused frustration to the resident, it did not overall delay the outcome or delay the resident’s ability to bring his case to us.
The landlord’s total offer of compensation for the effect of its poor complaint handling was £170. This was within a range of compensation suggested by our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident. This was an appropriate level of compensation which was proportionate to the landlord’s failings. As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to complaint handling. This means the landlord made an offer to the resident which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to condensation and the associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified within the report.

Pay the resident a total of £1210 compensation, which is made up of:

£710 compensation offered as part the stage 2 complaint response.
£500 for the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairing the resident’s windows.
The landlord should also pay the resident £50 per month from January 2026, until the works are completed.

Liaise with the contractor and book a suitable date for the works to be completed within the resident’s property. This should not exceed 8 weeks from the date of the report.
Complete a further damp survey to ensure that the works already completed are sufficient. If additional remedial works are required, these should be raised in line with the landlord’s own repair policies.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reoffer £170 compensation for complaint handling.
It is recommended that the landlord clarify to the resident whether it will consider installing a PIV unit.
Follow up with the resident to ensure the works it completes resolves the issues reported.
Reassess its complaint handling action tasks to ensure they are not closed without resolutions being completed.