London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202448010)

Decision
Case ID	202448010
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 December 2025

Background

1. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the length of time it was taking to repair a leak in the communal riser cupboard located just outside her flat. She said the ongoing leak had caused damp, mould, and bad smells in her flat as the riser cupboard was behind her kitchen wall. The resident said she believed the moisture was soaking through the wall behind her kitchen cupboards and under her flooring. She said she had been reporting the issues to the landlord since 2011. The resident said she was unable to live in her property as it was affecting her physical health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of a leak into a communal riser cupboard and associated damp, mould, and odours within the resident’s flat.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak into a communal riser cupboard and associated damp, mould, and odours within the resident’s flat.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak into a communal riser cupboard and associated damp, mould, and odours within the resident’s flat

5. The landlord acknowledged the difficulties experienced by the resident due to the ongoing leak. However, it told her it had completed the roof repairs when it was aware that there were outstanding defects. It did not recognise its lack of effective investigation within the resident’s flat or its poor response to her reports that she could not live in her home. Although the landlord offered proportionate compensation, there was no meaningful resolution to the complaint. It did not put any measures in place to monitor the roof repair and the issues are still outstanding.

Complaint handling

6. There was a minor delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s first complaint at stage 1. There was a significant delay in the landlord acknowledging the complaint at stage 2 following escalation. There was also a delay in the stage 2 response and the landlord did not recognise or acknowledge its complaint handling failures. 

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 provided by a senior manager. 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 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident: £1,440 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £1,440 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to of a leak into a communal riser cupboard and associated damp, mould, and odours within the resident’s flat. £50 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a full property inspection and damp and mould assessment. 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 resident’s kitchen and living area, and any other areas that could be affected by the smell, damp, and mould, 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 smell, damp, and mould • 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 and 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 15 January 2026
4	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure any identified works are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 29 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 December 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint about the length of time the landlord was taking to repair a leak in the riser cupboard located outside her flat. She said the ongoing leak had caused damp, mould, and bad smells in her home. She said she had been reporting the issues since 2011.
7 January 2025	The resident told the landlord that she wanted to make a complaint that it had not sent a job to its contractor. She said she had chased the contractor for an appointment date and it confirmed that it was not aware of the job.
13 January 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response in reply to both complaints. It apologised and said: its operative attended on 6 December 2024 and raised follow on works to its roofing team an operative attended on 30 December 2024 and confirmed it needed to raise further follow on work. Its planning team would contact the resident directly to schedule the appointment it had raised an order for a mould wash and shield. Its contractor would contact the resident directly to schedule the work it had arranged for a property inspection to take place on 14 January 2025 and it would monitor the works through to completion
16 January 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as the landlord had not addressed the smell in her flat.
28 February 2025	The resident again asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she was unhappy with the damp and mould (healthy homes) assessment. She said the damp and mould had affected her chest. She also said the damp and mould specialists did not assess the bedroom and had positioned the monitor in the only room that had not been affected by the damp and mould.
31 March 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It said: it understood that there was stagnant water on the roof which had caused unpleasant smells and a leak into the riser cupboard. its contractors carried out a healthy homes visit on 31 January 2025. They found that the leak was the main cause of the damp and mould in the resident’s home it inspected the roof on 4 February 2025 and completed the roof repairs on 11 March 2025. It cleaned the roof, removed the stagnant water, repaired the vents, and replaced missing roof caps. It was hopeful the work had resolved the issues. However, the resident should report any further issues with the roof or damp it offered the resident £1,440 compensation for distress and inconvenience
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said she wanted a permanent repair to stop the water ingress and prevent stagnant water from collecting on the roof. She also wanted compensation for distress, inconvenience, and the effect on her health as she was unable to live safely in her home.

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 landlord’s response to reports of a leak into a communal riser cupboard and associated damp, mould, and odours within the resident’s flat
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

7. The resident told us that the ongoing issues with damp, mould, and odours have affected 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. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident did report a leak in the communal riser cupboard in December 2011 and again in January 2014. It is also clear from the evidence provided that there have been significant water ingress issues over a number of years in relation to a potential design defect in the roof of the building. The evidence provided by the landlord is limited but appears to suggest that the defect related to a different part of the building and that this was rectified in 2022/2023. However, it has not been possible to complete a full and thorough assessment of the landlord’s actions over these periods due to the availability and reliability of the evidence, and the length of time that has passed. Therefore, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to 2023, which is when the resident raised further reports of water leaking into the riser cupboard.

What we have investigated

9. The resident raised concerns about water leaking into the riser cupboard at some point in October 2023 as part of a different complaint. The landlord raised a job on 25 October 2023 to investigate and treat the damp and mould within the riser cupboard in the communal area. It also told the resident on 27 October 2023 that it would arrange for a plumber to investigate. The landlord’s damp and mould contractors attended on 2 November 2023. This was within the timeframe of 20 working days for a mould assessment, set within the landlord’s damp and mould policy. The contractors cleaned the mould from inside the cupboard and confirmed that there was a leak.
10. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the plumber attended the block. It is also unclear what the outcome of the visit was. The landlord sent the resident an email on 18 January 2024. It said it would provide her with an update when it was aware of the allocated contractor. There is no evidence to show that the landlord provided any update to the resident or completed any further works to the riser cupboard. It is also unclear from the evidence provided what attempts, if any, the landlord made to resolve the issues between January 2024 and November 2024.
11. The landlord sent the resident a work order notification on 29 November 2024. This related to her reports of an ongoing problem with sewage smells coming in through the kitchen area and the ongoing leak into the riser cupboard. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 December 2024 as it had not booked works in to remove her kitchen cupboards to investigate behind them. The landlord said it had arranged for a plumber to attend her flat on 10 December 2024. It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly when the resident first raised her concerns in November 2024. However, based on the evidence provided, the landlord appears to have arranged the repairs visits within the 20 working day timeframe set within its repairs policy for routine repairs.
12. On 6 December 2024 the landlord’s maintenance team confirmed that the leak into the riser cupboard was coming from the roof. It said the back guttering was holding water and the area around the vents needed cleaning and resealing. It appropriately raised follow on works.
13. A plumber attended the resident’s property on 10 December 2024. He capped off the washing machine outlet and fitted an extension hose to reach the sink waste in an attempt to reduce the bad odours. This was a reasonable course of action to take in the circumstances. The resident said the plumber also accessed the roof and noted a large pool of stagnant water.
14. An operative attended the block on 13 December 2024 to clean the waste pipe and stack pipe as the landlord believed they were the source of the smells. The operative noted that there was a bad leak from the roof and significant damage within the riser cupboard. The landlord attended the building again on 30 December 2024 and accessed the roof. It booked further follow on works as it did not have a key to inspect the riser cupboard. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord had difficulties accessing the riser cupboard. Had it prepared for the visit by considering access requirements, it may have been able to reduce the number of visits required and resolved the issues sooner for the resident.
15. The landlord raised a request for a ‘healthy homes’ assessment of the resident’s flat on 30 December 2024. This included a mould wash of the kitchen wall.
16. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2025. She said the smell of mould was coming from behind her kitchen cupboards. She said the cupboards needed removing so that the contractors could access the wet walls during the healthy homes assessment, but the landlord had refused. She said the ongoing situation meant that she was effectively homeless as she could not stay in her flat. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord said it was unable to remove the kitchen cupboards. However, its response to the resident on the same day did not acknowledge that she felt she could not stay in her flat. It also provided no reassurance around the healthy homes assessment and how the assessment would be adequately completed without access behind the cupboards.  
17. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 14 January 2025 to carry out a property inspection. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of an inspection report. However, it sent an internal email on 15 January 2025 which gave an overview of the inspection. The email said an officer could smell damp within the property. Although, at the time of the visit, there was no overwhelming smell of sewage. The landlord noted visible signs of water damage within the riser cupboard, which backed onto the resident’s kitchen wall. It moved the washing machine (next to the kitchen units) and the fridge freezer (on the opposite wall) and found no signs of water damage, damp, or mould.
18. It checked the communal area wall and found no issues and it noted that there was no visible leak in the resident’s kitchen. It said it could not remove the cupboards or kickboard as they had been glued down. It said it would remove a kickboard and carry out a heat detection test to find the source of the leak at a later date. It also noted that the resident had raised concerns that there was mould on her living area flooring, but it said it did not think it was mould. It said it had arranged to meet its roofing contractors on 21 January 2025 to agree works.
19. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 January 2025. It confirmed the works it had completed and said its contractors would attend the property on 17 January 2025 to complete the healthy homes assessment. It said it had asked the contractors to confirm whether it was mould on the living area floor. It said it would arrange a thermal heat detection test to find the source of the leak under the sink, as it did not believe it was related to the roof leak. It said it was clear that the issues were affecting the resident, so it would make a referral for one to one support. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord was trying to find a leak under the sink, as the resident had not reported issues with the sink.
20. The resident responded on 16 January 2025. She said it had not addressed the smell of sewage in her home. She said she had put some of her belongings into storage due to the smells. She also told the landlord again that she could not live in her flat due to the ongoing issues. The landlord responded on the same day. It said its contractors had attended to the smell in December 2024. Although it thought it may have been a short term solution until it had fully addressed the leak. It said it could not move the resident on a temporary basis or offer alternative accommodation as the property was in a liveable state. It suggested the resident use air fresheners to mask the smell. Had the landlord carried out further investigations into the smells and the habitability of the property at this point, it may have identified the source of the issue much sooner.
21. The healthy homes assessment was carried out on 31 January 2025. This was slightly over the 20 working day timeframe set within the damp and mould policy. However, the landlord had rearranged the appointment due to the resident’s availability. The follow up report said that there was mould on the kitchen/living area floor (between the joints) possibly due to the moisture build up from the leak into the riser cupboard. It said it found no other damp or mould within the property. There is no evidence to show that the landlord’s contractors lifted the floor to investigate further, or that the landlord considered any follow up investigations in relation to the mould in the floor joints. Had it done so, it may have been able to identify, or at least eliminate, a potential source of the problem.
22. An internal email dated 31 January 2025 shows that the landlord had visited the block with its contractors and found several issues with the roof. Some of the issues it believed were causing the sewage smell. It said it was visiting the block again with the roofing supervisor on 4 February 2025 so it did not need to conduct a thermal heat detection test in the resident’s flat. It said it believed the roof was the source of the issues. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided why this meant there should be no further investigations into the resident’s flat. The landlord had agreed to remove the kickboards to check behind the cupboards, which was the main source of concern for the resident. She was still reporting damp and mould and it had not found the source of the water ingress into her flat.
23. The resident informed the landlord on 18 February 2025 that she had been staying with family and friends as she could not stay in her flat. She said she had been unwell with a chest infection and her flat had made her symptoms worse. The resident said she had asked the landlord to remove the kitchen cupboards because she could hear dripping from behind them. She said she was expecting the landlord to arrange further repairs appointments, but she had not had any follow up. The landlord responded the following day and said it was trying to find a solution. It said it was waiting for quotes to carry out a deep clean of the roof and replace damaged vent pipes, which it believed would stop the sewage smell. It said it would keep the resident updated.
24. The landlord’s contractors completed the identified repairs to the roof on 12 March 2025. However, the landlord confirmed in an internal email dated 12 March 2025 that there were still outstanding repairs to the roof. It said it was waiting for quotes, but it would not be a “quick fix” and it would need to decide on the best course of action. There is no evidence to show that it informed the resident of this, or that it had any plans in place to follow up with the resident to ensure the repairs it had completed had been successful.
25. In the stage 2 response the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the resident had experienced difficulties relating to the ongoing roof leak into the riser cupboard for some time. However, it said that the roof repairs had been completed, even though it was aware that there were still outstanding issues. In addition, it did not recognise its lack of effective investigation within the resident’s flat to find the source of the damp and sewage smell. It also did not recognise its poor response to the resident’s reports that she could not live in the property due to the ongoing conditions.
26. There was also no meaningful resolution offered by the landlord through the complaints process. There were no measures put in place to monitor the effectiveness of the repair, even though it knew there were still outstanding defects in the roof. It placed the responsibility to monitor the effectiveness of the repair on the resident. The resident has told us that the issues are still ongoing. She said the leak into the riser cupboard is much worse and she has been unable to live in her flat since January 2025.
27. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
28. Given the observations above, the landlord has not shown that it put things right through the complaints process. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint. However, we do not consider that the additional failings would lead to an increase in compensation, as the amount offered is proportionate taking into consideration the circumstances of the complaint. This is because it is in line with our remedies guidance where there have been serious failings by the landlord which had a severe long-term impact on the resident.  However, we have made orders in relation to the outstanding repairs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

29. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complies with the Code.
30. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 30 December 2024. She raised a further formal complaint on 7 January 2025 about a related issue. It would be reasonable to conclude from the evidence provided that the landlord responded to both complaints within the same complaint response. It sent the resident a stage 1 acknowledgement and stage 1 response on 13 January 2025. The acknowledgement was outside of the 5 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy for the first complaint. The stage 1 response was within the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy for both complaints.
31. The resident first escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 16 January 2025. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint again on 28 February 2025. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement on 5 March 2025. The acknowledgement was significantly outside of the timeframe of 5 working days from the first escalation request, set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
32. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 31 March 2025. This was outside the timeframe of 20 working days from the date the landlord should have acknowledged the first stage 2 complaint by (23 January 2025). The landlord did not recognise or acknowledge its complaint handling failures within either of its complaint responses.
33. In light of the identified failings, we consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this.

Learning

34. The landlord should ensure that it proactively updates residents during ongoing and complex repairs. Following repairs of a complex and/or reoccurring nature, the landlord should not place the responsibility of monitoring the effectiveness of the repair on the resident. It should also consider the habitability of a property and whether it is appropriate to offer a temporary move when it becomes aware that a resident is not living in the property due to its condition.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. Some of the evidence provided by the landlord was limited. However, this related to historical repairs and did not hinder our investigation.

Communication

36. The landlord was overall fairly responsive to the resident’s contact. It provided updates when requested. However, it was not proactive in contacting the resident.