London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202437801)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak in the bathroom, which they said caused damage and damp and mould. The landlord attended the property on several occasions and carried out multiple interventions. Despite these actions, the leak continued. The resident continues to report concerns about damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

1. Reports of leaks and damp and mould in the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:

1. Maladministration in its handling of the leak and the resulting damage, damp and mould.
2. Service failure in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the leak and resulting damage and damp and mould

4. We considered the time the landlord took to resolve the leak and to address the resulting damage and the damp and mould. The evidence shows the leak was not resolved promptly, and there were delays in addressing the associated damage. The landlord later carried out some repair works and awarded compensation but further works and compensation are needed to resolve the complaint.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not fully address all aspects of the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses. However, the landlord issued both responses within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The resident said they had experienced a leak from the flat above into their bathroom for over 7 years. However, the evidence provided by the landlord only covers events from 2021 onwards. We have also not seen evidence that the resident made a formal complaint through the landlord’s complaints process before January 2024.
7. To ensure fairness to both parties, and based on the evidence available, we have limited our investigation to events from November 2023. This is when the landlord completed a damp and mould survey, which led to the resident’s complaint.
8. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will assess a property within 20 working days of a report of damp and mould. Any necessary works should then be arranged within 10 working days. The landlord says to allow up to 40 working days for complex repair works to be completed.
9. The resident reported an intermittent leak from the flat above into their bathroom. This caused water damage to the ceiling and led to damp and mould. The resident also raised concerns about a potential safety risk, as water ingress affected the bathroom light and meant it could not be used. The landlord has provided evidence showing that it carried out surveys and mould wash treatments in earlier years.
10. The landlord considered the leak to be complex, as the source was not initially clear. Both the landlord and the resident believed the leak originated from the bathroom of the upstairs flat. The landlord carried out several works to investigate and try to resolve the issue.
11. We recognise that leaks can require more than one repair attempt, particularly where the source is difficult to identify. This does not, in itself, indicate shortcomings by the landlord, provided it takes reasonable steps to investigate, carries out appropriate repairs, and keeps the resident informed to minimise disruption.
12. In this case, however, the time taken to resolve the leak was excessive. The overall timescale went beyond what we would reasonably expect under the landlord’s repairs policy.
13. The leak continued throughout the escalated complaint period and after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The resident said the leak was finally resolved on 21 January 2026. This meant the issue continued for a further 13 months after the landlord’s complaints process ended.
14. The landlord’s records show that it ordered several repairs during 2025 in an attempt to stop the leak, but these did not provide a lasting solution. The resident reported that the leak recurred when the heating in the upstairs flat was in use. The evidence indicates the landlord was slow to investigate this as a possible cause.
15. Although the leak was reportedly resolved in January 2026, the resident said the landlord did not take steps to address the resulting damage, damp, or mould. The resident also said the landlord did not reinstate the bathroom light. We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided temporary lighting or other mitigation while it was investigating and repairing the leak.
16. The resident said the lack of lighting and the continued damp and mould affected their household. They reported that household members have asthma and that there were incidents involving slips, falls, and other injuries when using the bathroom with limited lighting.
17. We have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord but cannot determine the impact these issues have had on the residents health, as we are not medical experts. The resident could seek independent expert advice about this or pursue this concern through the courts.
18. The resident lived with damage and ongoing disruption for an extended period. There were points at which the landlord could have taken additional steps to reduce the impact on the resident while it worked to resolve the leak.
19. Following appointments on 21 and 22 April 2026, the landlord completed some repairs to address the damage caused by the leak. It also reinstated the bathroom light, which had been disconnected since the leak reoccurred in December 2025.
20. However, although the landlord recorded the need for a further damp and mould survey in January 2026, this survey has not taken place. The landlord has also not provided the resident with a date for when this will be completed. This does not align with the landlord’s damp and mould policy, and the resident told us this remains a cause of concern.
21. We will make an order requiring the landlord to complete a survey of the property. The survey should confirm whether any further works are needed now that the leak has been resolved, to ensure the property is in an appropriate condition.
22. We will also make a recommendation for the landlord to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. This is to support the landlord in reviewing whether its practices help prevent risks to residents, particularly in cases where leaks lead to repeated damp and mould in internal rooms.
23. The Ombudsman’s compensation guidance indicates that higher compensation may be appropriate where a resident experiences a significant impact over a prolonged period due to shortcomings by a landlord. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord offered the resident £620 for distress, inconvenience, and the time and effort spent pursuing the complaint.
24. This level of compensation would have been reasonable if the leak and all resulting issues had been fully resolved at that point. However, the resident continued to experience the leak, property damage, and damp and mould for a further 13 months.
25. We will therefore make an order for the landlord to pay additional compensation of £600. This is to recognise the prolonged impact of the unresolved leak, the ongoing damp and mould, and the damage to the property. We will also order the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the distress caused. Had the landlord not taken some steps to resolve the complaint, a finding of severe maladministration would have been reached in relation to its handling of the leak and damp and mould.

26. The landlord’s complaint procedure features a 2-stage process and is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code.
27. The resident received a stage 1 acknowledgement and response within one day of escalating the complaint on 10 January 2024. In that response, the landlord accepted the resident’s concerns about the leak and damage to the property and set out actions to address them. It arranged further works for 18 January 2024. This represented a reasonable initial response to the issues covered.
28. However, the stage 1 response did not address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould or the accidents the resident said occurred while the bathroom light was disconnected. This meant the landlord did not fully respond to all aspects of the complaint at stage 1.
29. After further contact from the resident and attendance by contractors to complete works, which were delayed until February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and offered compensation. The resident accepted this offer.
30. The resident then had to contact the landlord to chase the compensation payment, as it was not made when agreed. This shows the landlord did not follow through promptly on its commitment. The impact on the resident was limited, as the compensation was paid shortly afterwards.
31. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 following further contact from the resident in November 2024. The landlord decided to move directly to stage 2. This approach was consistent with its complaints policy, which allows escalation within 6 months of a stage 1 response or the completion of associated works, whichever is later. This decision benefitted the resident.
32. It’s worth mentioning that, at the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response, the leak had not been resolved. The complaint process did not include any mechanism to ensure promises made were followed up and completed.
33. To reflect the shortcomings identified in the landlord’s handling of the complaint process, we will make an order for the landlord to apologise.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord’s evidence and communication was sufficient to enable us to complete an investigation. The landlord kept a good record of repair reports along with the associated job reports from its contractors and repair operatives.

Communication

35. The resident said that landlord contractors attended the property to investigate the leak without having clear information about the issue. The resident also reported that incorrect jobs were sometimes recorded and that the landlord did not consistently update them on progress. This indicates there were shortcomings in how the landlord communicated and shared information about ongoing repairs. There is an opportunity for the landlord to review how it keeps residents informed about repair works, to ensure it meets its repair obligations and communication timescales.