London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202447613)

Decision
Case ID	202447613
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom property on the fifth floor with 2 children. She reported a leak, which caused lighting issues, damp and mould. She also reported communal heating faults, pest issues, and ASB from her neighbours. She asked the landlord to rehouse her and told it her family have physical and mental health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Multiple repairs including heating and hot water, leaks, windows, damp and mould.
   2. Pest control.
   3. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   4. The resident’s rehousing request.
   5. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s repairs handling.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of pest control.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
   4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
   5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s repairs handling

4. The landlord did not complete repairs in line with its repair policy timescales. It offered compensation that was proportionate to the detriment it caused the resident, but it did not assess hazards, fully complete the repairs, or resolve the complaint.

Pest control

5. The landlord completed pest control works between 2022 and 2024 but did not resolve the issues. Its complaint responses did not recognise its failings or offer compensation to put matters right.

ASB

6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s ASB reports but did not respond to her concerns in keeping with its ASB policy. It did not agree an action plan and its complaint responses did not recognise its failings or offer compensation to put matters right.

The resident’s rehousing request

7. The landlord gave the resident rehousing advice and agreed to consider evidence of her medical situation in line with its policy. It offered alternative accommodation but could have done so sooner given it was aware of the detriment the outstanding repairs and the resident’s living conditions had on her family.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in keeping with its complaint policy. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the impact its poor complaint handling caused the resident.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 23 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of pest control. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling the resident’s rehousing request. £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience the landlord’s complaint handling caused the resident. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date in addition to any compensation it had already paid. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 December 2025
	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. 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 for signs of water ingress, damp, and mould. It should also inspect the windows and the communal heating system and produce 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 resident’s damp and mould, water ingress, and heating and hot water concerns whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issues together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issues (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to start and complete the works whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 23 December 2025
3	ASB Order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her reports of ASB. Consider if it should open a new case and respond in line with its ASB policy and procedures. Update the resident with its decision and any action plan it agrees in writing.	No later than 23 December 2025
4	Rehousing and options The landlord must discuss the resident’s rehousing options with her and explain its housing management panel procedures.	No later than 23 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She requested urgent rehousing due to her family’s living conditions and raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs, a pest infestation in the building, and ASB caused by neighbours.
18 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
6 November 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said it inspected the property in September 2023 and settled a disrepair claim. It said it arranged roof and lighting repairs, and it would consider offering temporary rehousing. In its stage 1 response of 29 January 2024, it said it completed the heating repairs and offered her £800 compensation. When it inspected again on 7 October 2024, it found no problems. It said a specialist damp and mould contractor inspected the property and it would complete any recommended repairs. It said it closed a works order for pest control on 26 April 2024 because she did not respond, but it could rearrange this. It said it had no open ASB cases to investigate. It summarised the resident’s rehousing options and encouraged her to contact the local authority. It apologised for its service failings and offered £260 for distress and inconvenience, £120 for time and trouble getting matters resolved, and £50 for its complaint handling.
8 November 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said she wanted the landlord to rehouse her. She had no light in her bedroom, a leak that it had not fixed, the communal heating was not working properly, and the landlord had not put in the new radiators it promised. She said there was mould in the bedroom, and it had not addressed her ASB reports.
8 November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
23 December 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It apologised for its delay repairing a leak since May 2022. It said the windows had safety catches and the resident was responsible for their operation so there was no service failure. It said it completed damp and mould works in line with its policy timeframe and it would rearrange a pest control appointment. It said a housing officer would monitor her ASB reports, and she should report matters to the police and provide a crime references as evidence of ASB. It recommended the resident get an occupational therapist assessment or provide documentation to support her rehousing application. It said it would move the resident into alternative accommodation in January 2025, and she could claim for any damaged personal items through its insurance. It offered her £480 compensation for distress and inconvenience, £60 for time and trouble, £20 for complaint handling and £340 for roof and electric repairs up to January 2025, totalling £900.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. To put matters right she said the landlord should rehouse her, resolve her outstanding repair issues, and increase its compensation.

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	The repairs handling
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

9. The resident told us this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. 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 under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. In July 2023, the resident settled a disrepair claim about damp, mould, and a leak. The landlord inspected the works on 6 September 2023 and paid £1,250 compensation. We cannot investigate issues the resident raised, or could have raised, in legal proceedings.

What we did investigate

11. This investigation looks at the landlord’s handling of repairs in the 12 months before the resident’s October 2024 stage 1 complaint.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will repair the roof, windows, heating and fixtures and fittings for water supply, and treat condensation and mould. It says it will complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days, and emergency works within 24 hours.

Heating

13. The resident reported a heating fault in October 2023. The landlord carried out several repairs, but the resident was without heating and hot water for 2 weeks in November 2023. Multiple contractor visits did not resolve the issue, and the landlord’s response did not meet its repair policy timescales. This caused the resident significant inconvenience chasing repairs and making a complaint. The landlord found its communal heating system did not consistently heat the resident’s property because it was the last property in the corridor. However, because of its failure to repair the heating the resident replaced the electric heaters the landlord had provided with oil heaters to reduce running costs. 
14. On 29 January 2024, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It offered her £800 compensation in recognition its repair handling delays. However, the resident complained about heating issues in October 2024 and escalated her complaint to stage 2. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it found no faults when it reinspected the heating system in October 2024. 
15. The landlord’s heating repair handling was poor, but its compensation was proportionate to the detriment it caused the resident.  The resident told us there are ongoing faults with the communal heating system. We have ordered it to reinspect and consider if it needs to complete further repairs.

Leaks

16. The landlord and resident signed off repairs linked to a disrepair claim on 6 September 2023. A month later, the resident reported new leaks. The landlord inspected again and found roof tile repairs but did not repair the leak in keeping with its repair timescales. The resident complained in January 2024. The landlord said it would inspect on 9 February 2024 but did not attend, which caused her more inconvenience. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2.
17. In its March 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £170 compensation for the distress and inconvenience its handling of the leak after the disrepair claim caused her. This was in line with its compensation policy. However, it had not resolved the leak and electrical issues. The resident complained again in November 2024, and the landlord offered an extra £340 compensation in its final complaint response. The total compensation it offered for the leak was £510 which was proportionate for the impact of its repair failures. The resident says the landlord has not fixed the leak and electrical issues. We have ordered it to reinspect and complete any remedial work.

Windows

18. Landlords must follow building safety regulations and assess hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which includes “falls between levels.” In June 2022, the resident reported that low windows on the fifth floor were unsafe for her children. The landlord inspected on 30 June 2022 and found window restrictors were in place to prevent risks.
19. The landlord’s October 2024 healthy homes report said the windows lacked child safety locks, creating a fall risk. It is unclear how or when the restrictors were removed. The landlord did not reassess the windows under HHSRS before it sent its final complaint response to the resident. This was a failing.
20. In its final response to the resident, the landlord said the windows had safety locks and the operation of the catches was the resident’s responsibility. This advice contradicted its healthy homes report. The landlord should have acted on the information in the report and checked if the windows had safety locks. If they did not, it should have completed works to install a safety mechanism to remove any hazards or safety risks.
21. After the final complaint response, the landlord reinspected and found the windows needed replacing. We have ordered an urgent window inspection due to safety concerns.

Damp and mould

22. The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 17 October 2024. The landlord instructed a specialist damp and mould contractor to inspect the property within 3 working days in keeping with its damp and mould policy.
23. The contractor found a bedroom leak caused mould, and inadequate heating caused condensation. It recommended the landlord repair the radiators and the leak. It also advised the resident how she could resolve the mould in line with its damp and mould policy. However, the landlord did not complete the recommended repairs in keeping with its 10-working day damp and mould policy timescale.
24. The landlord reviewed its handling of damp and mould on 23 December 2024 in its final complaint response. It said it found no service failure because it responded in line with its service level agreement. However, given it had not completed the heating and electric repairs its damp and mould inspection recommended this conclusion was unreasonable. The landlord failed to address the likely cause of damp and mould and overlooked the cumulative impact on the resident.

Conclusion

25. Overall, the landlord’s repair handling was poor. It repeatedly failed to fix reported faults within its policy timescales, communicated inadequately, and overlooked the cumulative impact on the resident. In its final complaint response, it acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered £540 compensation. This was reasonable for the distress and inconvenience it caused. However, it did not explain if it learnt any lessons from the complaint or why it delayed offering rehousing. The landlord offered the resident a total of £1,850 compensation for the impact of its repair handling in 2024. This was proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord’s failings had a significant impact. However, the resident told us there are outstanding repairs and her complaint is unresolved. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s repair handling.
26. We have not ordered the landlord to pay any further compensation for its repair handling. However, we have ordered it to inspect the property and decide if it needs to complete repairs.

Complaint	The handling of the pest control
Finding	Service failure

27. The resident previously reported issues with mice in 2022 and 2023. She made no further reports after August 2023 until she reported mice in the housing block on 15 January 2024.
28. The landlord’s pests policy says it will deal with mice where a resident’s treatment has been unsuccessful, or where the problem affects multiple flats or communal areas. The landlord raised works orders for treatment on 22 January and 26 March 2024 which was reasonable. However, its contractor did not always gain access to the resident’s home.
29. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of pest control in October 2024 in her stage 1 complaint. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it found no service failure as it did not gain access to 2 appointments but it would rearrange the appointments.  The landlord tried to treat the property in response to the resident’s reports. However, it would have been better if it reassured the resident it would resolve the issue by treating the block as well as her property. It also missed the opportunity to provide compensation for the detriment its failure to resolve the pest issues caused the resident. Overall, the landlord’s actions were not sufficient to resolve the pests. We found service failure in its handling of pest control. 
30. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the impact of its pest control repair failings. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance where we have found service failure that has caused time and trouble to the resident pursuing a resolution.

Complaint	The landlord’s ASB handling
Finding	Maladministration

31. The tenancy agreement entitled the resident to quiet enjoyment. The landlord’s ASB policy says residents should not experience ASB and that it will act promptly on reports of noise or harassment.
32. On 27 June 2022, the resident reported drug and alcohol misuse, noise, and harassment. The landlord recommended that she contact the police and it met with her on 30 June 2022 which was reasonable. It emailed her 2 days later confirming it would install CCTV on 19 July 2022. Its actions were in line with its ASB policy.
33. There is no evidence the landlord completed a risk assessment or took further action before the resident raised concerns again in August 2022. She queried the landlord’s CCTV installation plans and reported intercom faults. The landlord should have agreed an action plan, updated her on the CCTV, and repaired the intercom. It also did not speak to the police, despite recommending that she do so, increasing her distress.
34. The resident reported ASB concerns again in March 2023 and January 2024, but there is no evidence the landlord responded. This was a failing that caused the resident distress and effort complaining about the landlord’s ASB handling in October 2024.
35. In its complaint responses, the landlord said it had no open ASB cases and it did not explain why, or how it would investigate her ASB reports. It recommended police involvement for criminal activity, which was appropriate, but it did not explain how it would work in partnership with the police or other agencies. It failed to acknowledge its own failings and missed the chance to offer compensation for distress and inconvenience to put matters right. We found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
36. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where maladministration caused time, trouble, and delays to the resident that the landlord has not proportionately addressed. The landlord must also apologise to the resident in writing, discuss her current circumstances, and consider opening a new ASB case investigation.

Complaint	The resident’s rehousing request
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

37. Since the landlord sent it stage 2 complaint response, the resident said the landlord withdrew its alternative accommodation offer. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the offer. If she is unhappy with its final complaint response, she can bring her complaint to us to consider.

What we did investigate

38. This investigation looked at the resident’s rehousing request that was part of her complaint to the landlord in October 2024. We also considered events in the months leading up to the complaint and have included some background information for context.
39. In June 2023, the resident asked the landlord to move her temporarily while it completed repairs, but the landlord said it could complete the repairs with her in occupation. It said she could register for permanent rehousing with the local authority and explained her alternative rehousing options. It also offered to send any medical evidence she provided to a rehousing panel. Its advice was reasonable. However, its allocation and letting policy allowed rehousing if severe overcrowding affected a residents’ health. Given the resident reported the property caused her physical and mental health concerns, the landlord should have assessed if she met the emergency move threshold.
40. In January 2024, the resident sent the landlord medical information to support her transfer request. The landlord confirmed independent examiners considered transfer requests on medical grounds within 8 weeks. The Landlord did not provide evidence to confirm the outcome of the resident’s medical submission.
41. In December 2024, the resident told the landlord she agreed to a mutual exchange with her neighbour and had sent a mutual exchange application in October 2024. The landlord explained it did not receive her application but as the resident’s neighbour signed the application after vacating his property, he could not complete a mutual exchange. The landlord’s advice was correct, but the resident complained about its handling of her rehousing request.
42. The landlord committed to rehouse the resident in its final complaint response which was supportive. However, it should have considered offering a move sooner given it was aware of the difficulty the resident’s living conditions caused her family. The landlord did not recognise its failings and the detriment this caused to the resident. It also missed the opportunity to offer her compensation in line with its policy.
43.  We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request. We have ordered it to pay her £250 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has not proportionately addressed the time, trouble and inconvenience its failings caused the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing and discuss her rehousing options with her.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

44. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 6 November 2023, 4 working days later than its response target. It responded to her stage 2 complaint on 23 December 2023, 11 working days later than its target timescale.
45. Its complaint responses did not address the resident’s concerns about its handling of her ASB reports. It also did not give a timeline for completing the repairs which left these issues unresolved. In its stage 2 response, the landlord gave incorrect information about the date it sent the resident its stage 1 response.
46. The landlord recognised its complaint handling delays, apologised, and offered £70 compensation. However, it did not show any learning from the complaint. The compensation was not enough for the time, effort, and inconvenience its failings caused the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an extra £100 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

47. The landlord should have completed a risk assessment about the ASB. It should have spoken to the resident and her neighbours about the ASB and agreed an action plan.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

48. There were gaps in the evidence the landlord sent us for this investigation. It did not provide copies of its earlier complaint responses, a disrepair claim form, the outcomes of its disrepair investigations, and the resident’s medical rehousing assessment.

Communication

49.  The landlord emailed or spoke to the resident when there was new information about her repair issues and complaints. Its complaint responses lacked empathy for the resident’s living conditions and the impact it had on her family.