London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202438489)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438489

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and deciding 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 sent 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 the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damp and mould in the property.
   2. Mice in the property.
2. We have investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat the landlord owns and manages. It let the property to her under a fixed term, assured shorthold tenancy agreement in November 2014.
4. The resident first reported damp and mould issues to the landlord in 2016. She also reported mice in the property in 2019. The landlord’s handling of these issues were the subject of the resident’s complaint.
5. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 25 November 2024 which the landlord acknowledged on the same day. It sent her a stage 1 complaint response on 5 December 2024. It upheld her complaint and said:
   1. It would review the outcome and raise any follow-on works.
   2. It raised a works order for a pest contractor to arrange a property inspection with her. It would review the outcome, assess the situation, and give advice about preventative measures.
   3. It could not reimburse her for damaged property or personal injury as these claims were outside its complaint procedure. It provided the resident with the contact details of its insurance and advice on how to submit a claim.
6. The resident emailed a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 2 January 2025. She attached photographs to her complaint and said:
   1. She had been patient but she thought the landlord was not taking her case seriously.
   2. She was depressed and stressed with having to deal with mice, damp, and mould in the property.
   3. The landlord said it would monitor repairs, but she had to call the pest control to arrange an appointment. Also, that a damp and mould contractor did not attend an appointment.
   4. She had to stay in a bedroom because mice were chewing her carpets and mould in the bathroom had become worse.
   5. She would contact environmental health as the matters were affecting her and her family’s mental health and wellbeing.
7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 February 2025 and sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 14 March 2025. It summarised its handling of the pests, damp, and mould and it:
   1. Provided advice about ventilation, managing, and preventing condensation.
   2. Said rehousing was a resident-driven process and explained the actions she could take to pursue rehousing. It also recommended a mutual exchange and provided a contact number for her to discuss her rehousing options.
   3. Said it did not uphold the complaint as there were no repairs delays, it kept to its obligations, and it was satisfied with it housing services.
   4. Said it could not predict when issues with rodents or mould would occur, but it would deal with these when reported.
   5. Acknowledged its delayed stage 2 complaint response and offered the resident £20 as compensation.
8. The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said to put matters right the landlord should rehouse her and provide compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident told us she experienced mice in the property for around 10 years. The historical issues provide useful background to the complaint and are summarised below. However, our assessment focusses on the landlord’s handling of the issues the resident raised in her formal complaint of 24 November 2024 from around 12 months prior to that complaint onwards.
10. 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 illness. We cannot decide on causation based on a review of the housing file. We can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, but we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. If the resident wishes to pursue a claim she should get independent legal advice.
11. The resident said she wants the landlord to move her as she no longer feels comfortable in the property. We can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, we would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have information about the availability of suitable vacant properties the landlord owns. We also do not have details of any other residents waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing. We recommend the landlord continue to support the resident with her request to move from her current property and discuss her rehousing options with her.

Damp and mould

12. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord’s repair policy says it will complete repairs to extractor fans, walls, ceilings, damp, mould, and condensation. It also says it completes routine repairs within 25 calendar days.
13. The landlord responded to damp and mould in 2016 when it raised works orders to trace and remedy a leak that came into the kitchen from the loft. It also sent the resident a damp and mould kit in 2018 but there were no further records of damp and mould until 17 December 2020.
14. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must decide if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to consequences for everyone involved.
15. The landlord completed a healthy homes assessment on 5 January 2021. It found no external issues or indications of moisture. However, it found visible signs of mould in the bedroom and bathroom. It said condensation from the insufficient use of extractor fans caused the mould. It treated the mould and gave the resident advice about ventilating the property. It also planned to call her back to discuss the use the extractor fans. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the property, treat the mould, and provide advice. It was also reasonable for it to rely on its damp and mould team’s assessment. The landlord’s actions were in keeping with its damp and mould policy. This says it will assess the property to understand the scale of the problem within 20 working days and provide guidance on managing mould within the property.
16. The landlord raised works orders in January and March 2021 to investigate a roof leak above the kitchen ceiling. It said this was critical and caused a damp ceiling and paint to peel off. It is unclear why its healthy homes report concluded there were no external issues or indication of moisture considering this. This suggests any roof repair the landlord completed had failed.
17. The landlord raised another works order for damp and mould in June 2021. It said it attended in January 2021 but the mould spread and was forming in the bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen. It completed another healthy homes assessment on 7 July 2021. It said the property was not sufficiently ventilated and there were missing roof tiles and external pointing repairs which caused damp. It also said there may be a leak from the roof or pipes inside the loft. It treated the mould again and reported the roof tiling and repointing repairs. This was in keeping with its damp and mould policy which says it will clean and complete shield treatments and raise repairs to its maintenance teams. It also said it would speak to the resident about using her kitchen extractor fan and drying clothes in the flat, which was reasonable. There is no evidence the landlord completed the roof tiling and pointing repairs which it should have done in line with its 25 day repair policy timescale. This was unreasonable and was likely to cause distress and inconvenience to the resident while living in the damp property.
18. On 21 September 2021, a contractor reported a leak from the roof or pipes inside the loft which needed investigating. It also reported the damaged/missing roof tiles above the bathroom again. The landlord raised works orders on the same day and again on 26 October 2021 to repair missing pointing at the end of guttering which allowed water ingress. It is not clear why the landlord duplicated these works orders. It is also unclear if or when it completed the roof repairs, or if the damaged pointing and roof tiling contributed to the mould. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the likely impact of these repairs inside the property, given the recurring damp and mould. The landlord’s delay completing these repairs between September 2021 and February 2022 was outside the 25 day routine repair policy timescale.
19. We expect landlords to keep complete records of its housing services. When there is a dispute about repairs or the condition of a property, the onus is on the landlord to show how it completed repairs in line with its responsibilities. Conflicting start and end dates on the repair records suggests poor knowledge and information management.
20. The landlord raised a works order on 15 November 2021 to treat mould in the property, but it is unclear if or when it completed this work. It raised another works order to inspect damp and mould on 3 February 2022 and completed a further healthy homes report on 9 February 2022. The healthy homes report said it treated a very wet bedroom wall. The landlord took 59 working days to complete its healthy homes assessment. This was outside its 20 working day damp and mould policy timescale. Its delayed response was likely to cause further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
21. There are no other reports of damp and mould until the resident reported black mould in January 2024. The landlord completed another healthy homes assessment on 5 March 2024 and treated all affected areas in the property. It raised a further works order on 8 March 2024 to investigate a leak into the property that was affecting the ceiling. But it recorded it could not access the property when it visited on or before 12 March 2024. There is no evidence it took any further action until after the resident made a stage 1 complaint on 25 November 2024. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to rearrange its investigation into the reported roof leak. The landlord’s failing was likely to cause more distress and inconvenience to the resident while residing in the property with unresolved and recurring damp.
22. The landlord raised a works order on 25 November 2024 to treat damp and mould and advised the resident how to prevent mould in response to her complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to resend advice in response to her reports of damp and mould. However, it would have been better if it recognised it already provided this information and acknowledged it inspected and treated damp in the property during the preceding years. The landlord missed the opportunity to recognise the cumulative effect of its previous actions and rebuild the resident’s confidence in its repairs service.
23. The landlord cancelled a works order it raised to complete damp and mould works on 31 December 2024 because its contractor had already completed works twice. There was no evidence it completed damp and mould works since its healthy homes assessment in March 2023, despite the resident raising this in her complaint. This was a failing that also suggests further poor record keeping.
24. The landlord recommended referring the matter to a surveyor in an internal email on 6 January 2025. It said it could not keep sending contractors to clean and there may be a problem that a surveyor could find and remedy. This was appropriate in recognition of the recurrence of damp and mould problems over an unreasonable amount of time. However, it would have been better if it identified this sooner under the circumstances. It apologised its damp and mould contractor had not attended and told the resident it would investigate and provide information about what it would do to address the mould. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
25. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property for damp and mould on 13 January 2025. It said it needed to overhaul the bathroom extractor fan and agreed to send a decoration voucher to the resident for her to apply anti mould paint. It treated the mould again during a further healthy homes inspection on 24 January 2025 and said there were no longer any mould issues. It is likely the surveyor assessed the structure and roof of the property during the inspection as the landlord raised a works order on 13 February 2025 that said the pitched roof was leaking into the loft.
26. The landlord installed a new bathroom fan in the property on 21 February 2025, following an appointment on 27 January 2025 when it could not get access to the flat. This was appropriate under the circumstances, given the surveyor identified this may have been a cause of the condensation and mould. The landlord attended the appointments in keeping with its repair policy timescales.
27. The landlord did not complete any other damp and mould works before sending its final complaint response on 14 March 2025. Its response summarised the actions it took to investigate the damp and mould. It also restated advice about the causes and maintenance of condensation and mould. However, there is no evidence it considered the resident’s reported concerns about the impact of the condition of the property on her health. This was unreasonable considering she said she lived in one room due to the condition of the property.
28. The landlord did not find any failings in its handling of damp and mould. Therefore, it did not consider whether the failings we found may have caused detriment to the resident, such as by offering compensation in keeping with its compensation policy. This says it would offer compensation where it does not follow its policies and procedures, and this has a negative impact on the resident.
29. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard, and the landlord had to consider whether damp and mould problems in the property amounted to a hazard and required remedying. It inspected the property to find the causes of damp and mould as detailed in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System introduced by the Housing Act 2004. It was reasonable for the landlord to do so and for it complete healthy homes assessments, provide advice, and treat the mould. However, there is no evidence it had oversight of the recurring damp and mould issues which was a failing.
30. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to fully investigate the likelihood that damp and mould were related to water ingress from the roof. Alternatively, for it to complete a lasting roof repair to satisfy itself this was not a cause of damp and mould. There is no evidence it did so. The landlord handled the resident’s ongoing reports of damp and mould in a reactive way and underestimated the scale of the damp problems for around 5 years. There was no evidence it kept the resident informed of its actions and next steps, or that it communicated on a regular basis in keeping with its damp and mould policy. The cumulative impact of the landlord’s failings increased the likely distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident. Consequently, taking all matters into account, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
31. There is evidence the landlord re-raised a works order on 20 March 2025 that said the pitched roof was leaking into the loft. It completed mould treatment works and another damp and mould assessment on 16 May 2025. The landlord completed these repairs since the complaint exhausted the internal complaint procedure. There was no evidence the landlord found and remedied the cause of the recurring leak, damp, and mould in the property. By not repairing the causes of damp in the property the landlord likely increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
32. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation. This is in keeping with the range set out in our remedies guidance where we found maladministration the landlord has not proportionately addressed. We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the property to assess if it requires any further repairs, discuss the resident’s rehousing options with her, and apologise in writing for its handling of damp and mould in the property.

Mice in the property

33. The resident reported mice issues to the landlord in January 2019. The landlord raised works orders for pest control treatment in response to her reports. It treated the property 3 times between January 2019 and June 2019. The resident did not report any further issues with mice until October 2020 when the landlord raised a works order for a pest contractor to proof the property.
34. The resident next reported mice in July 2021 when the landlord raised works orders to treat the property and block holes in the airing cupboard. It treated the property 3 times between July 2021 and November 2021. There were no further reports of mice until November 2023 when the landlord raised another works order to treat the mice. The resident reported mice again on 16 January 2023, but there are no further reports of mice until the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the issues on 25 November 2024.
35. The landlord’s pests policy says it will deal with mice where a resident unsuccessfully handled the issues themselves. Alternatively, where the problem affects multiple properties, communal areas, or a home because of disrepair. The policy says residents must keep their homes clean and in good condition.
36. The landlord raised and sent a pest control works order to the resident and a pest contractor on the same day she made her complaint. It is not clear if it did so because the resident already treated the property, property disrepair, or if the mice affected other properties. However, this was reasonable, given it previously treated mice and considering the distress it caused the resident. The landlord did not book an appointment with its contractor as it relies on the pest contractor to arrange appointments with residents. This was reasonable given it does not have access to the external contractor’s diary.
37. The resident chased the repair 2 days later and the landlord provided the resident with its pest contractor’s contact details. The resident booked a pest treatment for the 4 December 2024. The landlord’s policies do not give a specific target time for responding to pests. However, the pest contractor attended within 7 working days of her complaint which was reasonable.
38. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 December 2024 to complain it told her the wait time for pest control was 40 days, despite her making an appointment within 7 days. It is likely the landlord set a 40 day completion timescale for the work order. However, it did not clearly explain this to the resident. This caused the resident time and trouble raising her concerns about this to the landlord.
39. The pest contractor treated the property on 4 December 2024. It found no evidence of mice, or entry holes but found signs of chewing on the resident’s carpet. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response the next day, it told the resident it would assess the situation and give her advice about preventative measures. This was reasonable given the contractor had only attended the day before.
40. The landlord also addressed the resident’s report of damaged property in its complaint response. It said it could not reimburse her as damaged property was subject to insurance investigations. This was in keeping with its compensation policy which says it does not give compensation for damage to a resident’s home or belongings. However, it provided the resident with contact details for its insurance team and advice on how to submit a claim. This was appropriate.
41. The pest contractor did not gain access to the property on 13 December 2024. But it completed further investigation and treatment works on 2, 6, and 23 January 2025. Over the 3 treatments the contractor found the hygiene of the property improved from being bad, to fair, to good. It blocked access points in the property and found no evidence of mice during its last visit. It was reasonable for the landlord to attend 3 times to monitor mice activity and the condition of the property.
42. The resident told the landlord mice had come back on 17 February 2025. The landlord raised a new pest control works order on the same day. The landlord also spoke to its contractor about the works it completed since December 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to find out more about the situation and rely on the qualified assessment of its specialist contractor.
43. The pest contractor visited the property twice before the landlord sent its final stage 2 complaint response on 14 March 2025. It said the property hygiene became poor but did not find any evidence of mice activity. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2025 saying she had seen and heard mice in the property and attached photographs of mice droppings to the email. The landlord is continuing to treat mice in the property since the complaint exhausted the internal complaint procedure.
44. The landlord provided a detailed summary of its response to the resident’s mice issues in its final complaint response. It explained it could not predict when mice issues would occur and reassured her it would deal with issues when she reported them. However, in its stage 1 complaint response it agreed to give the resident advice about preventative measures. There was no evidence it did so. This was a missed opportunity, considering the contractor’s assessment about the property’s hygiene. There was also no evidence it discussed the matter with environmental health in keeping with its pest policy. This says it would provide joint solutions to infestations by working with local authority environmental health departments.
45. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, did not say what else it could do to resolve the recurring issue, nor offer the resident an apology, or redress, such as compensation. This was unreasonable given the recurring issue and the effect the resident explained the matter had on the wellbeing on her family. Consequently, taking all matters into account, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice in the property.
46. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in keeping with our remedies guidance where we have found service failure that has likely caused detriment to the resident that the landlord has not proportionately addressed.

The resident’s complaint

47. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
    1. Did not fully address the resident’s stage 1 complaint such as providing her with a time scale to update her on the repairs it raised. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.6 of the Code. This says it must track and promptly action outstanding items and provide appropriate updates.
    2. Incorrectly said its damp and mould contractor visited the day before the stage 1 complaint response, instead of a pest control contractor. There is no evidence its damp and mould contractor visited on 4 December 2024.
    3. Did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 2 January 2025 until 13 March 2025. This was 30 working days later than its 20 working day complaint policy timescale. This may have caused the resident to incur time and trouble while waiting for the landlord’s response. It also caused her inconvenience of raising the complaint again on 17 February 2025.
48. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord considered its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing its housing services. It recognised its delayed complaint response was likely to cause the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. It apologised for this and offered her £20 as compensation in keeping with its compensation procedure. This says it would offer compensation where it fails to respond to a complaint within agreed response times and/or does not comply with our Complaint Handling Code. However, the landlord’s award was low and was not proportionate to the likely detriment its delay may have caused the resident.
49. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £80 compensation below, totalling £100. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances when there have been minor failings by the landlord which did not significantly affect the overall outcome but caused the resident to incur time, trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved.

Determination (decision)

50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of:
    1. The resident’s reports of mice in the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Orders and recommendations

52. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of damp and mould.
    2. Send the resident the £75 decoration voucher it promised if it has not already.
    3. Pay the resident the £20 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already.
    4. Pay the resident an added £780 compensation made up as follows:
       1. £600 for time, trouble, and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of damp and mould may have caused the resident.
       2. £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of pest control issues may have caused the resident.
       3. £80 for time and trouble the landlord’s complaint handling failures may have caused the resident.
    5. Inspect the property to assess if it needs any repairs. If it does, the landlord should send the resident and us details of the works, together with a timetable for when it will carry out the works, within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
    6. Work with the resident and seek advice from the local authority environmental health department to investigate the cause of recurring mice in the property. Communicate any outcomes and/or treatment plans to the resident and us within 2 weeks of the inspection.
    7. Review its record keeping practices and consider how it can make improvements considering the problems we have highlighted in this report. The landlord should pay particular attention to the good practice advice set out in our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
53. The landlord should pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any arrears the resident may owe the landlord, where they exist.
54. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendation

55. We recommend the landlord continue to support the resident with her request to move from the property and discuss her rehousing options with her.