London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202425699)

Decision
Case ID	202425699
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	9 March 2026

Background

The resident has lived in the landlord’s property for more than 10 years. She has a medical condition that she says is affected by mould. In November 2023 she reported that problems with the windows were causing damp and mould in the property. The landlord arranged for its damp and mould team to inspect the home and gave her advice about managing humidity. The resident was dissatisfied with this response.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports about damp and mould.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
2. Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports about damp and mould

While the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s reports about damp and mould it failed to demonstrate that it took her vulnerabilities into account when responding to her reports and failed to follow up on actions it said it planned to take in its final response.

The complaint

The landlord significantly delayed responding at stage 2 of its process and failed to demonstrate that it had taken learning from this complaint.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £615 made up as follows: £300 for its failure to act responsively to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the context of her reported vulnerabilities £75 for its extended complaint delay and failure to apologise for that or demonstrate learning from the complaint £240 (if not already paid), for the failings it accepted in its complaints process 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 06 April 2026
2	Specific action order The landlord must contact the resident to obtain more information about her condition and about how she says this is affected by the issues in the property. It should complete a risk assessment to ascertain if there are any steps it needs to take to support her.	No later than 06 April 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property windows. 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 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. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the property windows and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the issues the resident complains of 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 [repair/resolution] to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 06 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 April 2024	The resident complained that advice the landlord had provided about how mould formed at the property had been “insulting and patronising”. She said she wanted the results from a heat loss survey, and the humidity and damp report results the landlord had carried out. She stressed that she had a condition that meant “mould will kill me”. She asked the landlord to clean the mould on the windows and side wall and said that double-glazing, insulated walls and additional radiators would solve the problem.
5 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and provided a stage 1 response. Among other things, it said its specialist damp and mould team had conducted an assessment following her report in November 2023 and did not consider works were required. However, it had arranged a “clean and shield” treatment and would review again. In recognition of the resident’s time and effort it offered £160.
5 and 16 April 2025	The resident asked to escalate her complaint and the landlord said it would do so.
22 April 2025	The landlord says it contacted the resident to discuss her request to escalate. (We have not seen the record of its conversation).
9 and 11 July 2024	The resident asked if her complaint had been escalated and the landlord confirmed that it had escalated it again.
28 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained the actions it had taken so far to investigate the resident’s concerns, said it had arranged a window inspection for 30 August, and would contact her to discuss her health concerns. It accepted it had fallen short of its standards and offered a further £80 compensation to acknowledge its delay in reviewing her complaint at stage 2.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident took her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord had not responded appropriately to her reports and had not set out what it would do following its visit on 30 August 2024.

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	Damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident has said this situation has impacted her 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. They can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. We’ve not investigated this further. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused her.

What we did investigate

The resident reported damp and mould on 17 November 2023. The landlord arranged for its damp and mould specialist team to visit on 18 December 2023.
Their report said:
1. the resident refused a clean and shield treatment (although she denies this).
2. there were no structural issues and no damp on any of the walls.
3. the “windows appear fine”
4. it might be advisable to check the insulation at the property.
The resident sent photographs of damp and mould to the landlord. In line with its policy, the landlord reviewed the images and provided her with advice on managing humidity on 19 March 2024.
After reviewing the photographs, the damp and mould team considered the mould to be manageable and noted that part of routine home maintenance included cleaning mould. They also reviewed data from the heat and humidity sensor. Their records show that the temperature in the property had dropped below 17°C at times, particularly in January, and that humidity levels were mostly above 65%. (Public Health guidelines suggests that the temperature considered ‘normal’ or ideal for a house during winter is generally between 18°C and 21°C). They advised that the bedroom required improved ventilation to reduce humidity. The landlord shared these findings with the resident on 16 April 2024.
Overall, the evidence the landlord obtained, while acknowledging a drop in ideal temperature at times, supported its conclusion that there was no significant damp and mould problem, at least nothing beyond what would be considered a tenant’s general home cleaning responsibility.
However, the resident had made clear in her reports and complaints that she was concerned that her particular health circumstances meant that even a small amount of mould could be a risk (such as when cleaning it). She was also concerned about the low temperatures at the property. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will consider a resident’s health condition and that some residents may be more vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould. It also states that it may adapt its approach in such cases, including prioritising the matter. Despite its policy, it did not address her concerns.
The issue remained unresolved until the resident contacted the landlord on 8 July 2024 to chase the escalation of her complaint. It confirmed her complaint would now be escalated. The resident asked whether any practical support would be provided in view of her condition.
The complaints team sought further advice. The damp and mould team noted there was a high possibility that additional repairs might be required. They said they would now request further information from the resident so that the case could be referred to a building surveyor.
On 19 July 2024 the landlord informed the resident that the damp and mould team would contact the planned and programmed works team to arrange a survey. It advised her that there was no timeframe for this.
The resident sent further photographs on 5 August 2024. Internally, the landlord again considered the mould to be manageable. The complaints team asked whether, given the resident’s condition, any additional support could be offered. A staff member suggested sending the resident a medical rehousing application, although it is not clear from the evidence whether this was done. Another staff member suggested raising a case with the neighbourhood housing lead (NHL) to discuss her support needs and obtain medical information that could be flagged on the landlord’s systems. They noted that where a resident used the term “deadly”, the landlord should “be seen to act more efficiently”.
The stage 2 complaint response issued on 28 August 2024 set out the steps the landlord had taken, including the replacement of 3 radiators. However, the records do not show that it took timely action in relation to the resident’s report that the mould was affecting her health. Even if the mould would usually be considered “manageable”, in the resident’s particular circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment or request further information about her condition at an earlier stage.
The only further action the landlord agreed to was to arrange an inspection for 30 August 2024 to assess the windows. It said the inspection would determine whether the windows should be replaced sooner than the planned programme in 2030 and whether interim repairs were needed.
There is no evidence of the landlord updating the resident on the outcome of the August visit. It is not clear from the records that it went ahead. This was a failure to follow through on the commitment made in the stage 2 response and a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint. Despite the resident’s repeated requests for an update, she was told only that her feedback would be recorded, without being given the information she sought.
Overall, while the landlord took some steps to assess the residents reports about damp and mould, it delayed taking steps to explore the resident’s concern that her medical condition made the situation unmanageable for her. This meant it did not take account of her individual circumstances. It also did not follow up on the promised inspection of the windows. Given the resident had repeatedly stated the potential impact on her health, these were significant failings.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaint process that is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, (the Code). Its policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It aims to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It also states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 escalation by the end of the next working day, acknowledge a stage 2 escalation on the same working day, and escalate the complaint within 2 working days.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 April 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 16 April 2024. It then did not progress the escalation until after the resident chased it on 8 July 2024, and it formally escalated the complaint on 11 July 2024. The stage 2 response then took 34 working days to issue. In total, from the escalation request in April 2024 to the stage 2 response, the process took 101 working days, which was an 81‑working day delay. During this period, the resident was waiting for an update on an issue she said was affecting her health.
The landlord acknowledged it had delayed and offered £80 in recognition of this. However, the stage 2 response did not include an apology for the delay. In both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord stated that its service had fallen short of its standards but did not explain how. The responses did not show evidence of learning from the issues raised.

Learning

As set out in the decision, the landlord did not respond adequately when the resident informed it that she had a serious health condition affected by mould. The records indicate that staff did not appear to have a clear process for responding to reported vulnerabilities in the context of damp and mould. The landlord should review its procedures to ensure it has robust processes in place to identify and act on vulnerabilities raised during damp and mould reports.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord was unable to locate records of the visit arranged to inspect the resident’s property. Without these records, the resident’s complaint was left unresolved and the resident was not informed what the next steps would be, if any. This added to her distress. The landlord should consider the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report to improve the accuracy and completeness of its records.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. As has been pointed out above, despite her repeated requests for an update on the visit of 30 August 2025, the landlord failed to respond helpfully. The landlord should consider the findings in the Ombudsman’s Attitudes, Respect and Rights spotlight report to support more effective communication with vulnerable residents.