London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202513531)

Decision
Case ID	202513531
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 January 2026

Background

1. The resident has an assured tenancy of the property where she has lived since May 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow situated in a sheltered living scheme. The landlord is aware the resident has both physical and mental health conditions. This includes a respiratory condition. The landlord also has a vulnerability noted for mobility.
2. The resident asked us to look at 2 complaints. The first relates to the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp, and mould in the property (complaint 1). The second relates to a complaint about external lighting (complaint 2). Following contact from the resident we asked the landlord to escalate both complaints to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged both complaints at the same time. As such, we have investigated and determined the landlord’s handling of both complaints within this one report.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Report of leaks, damp, and mould in the property.
   2. Request for additional external lighting.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
   1. Report of leaks, damp, and mould in the property.
   2. Request for additional external lighting.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, the Ombudsman found the landlord:

Report of leaks, damp, and mould in the property

1. Delayed unreasonably in rectifying the leak. Failed to complete an up-to-date damp and mould inspection. Delayed in completing actions agreed in its stage 2 complaint response.

Request for additional external lighting

2. Unreasonably delayed in assessing the communal lighting provision outside the resident’s home. Failed to keep adequate records of its visits. Did not fully assess the resident’s request for additional lighting to the front of her property. Failed to consider the resident’s vulnerability in reaching its decision.

Complaint handling

3. Failed to comply with the timescales set out in the Complaint Handling Code in respect of its stage 1 response for complaint 1. Failed to acknowledge complaint 2 at stage 1.

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 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 26 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,650 made up as follows: £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp, and mould in the property. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for additional external lighting. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. 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 26 February 2026
3	The landlord must visit the property whilst dark to assess the lighting to the front of the resident’s property. It should consider the resident’s mobility issues. It must confirm its decision to the resident in writing, setting out the reasons.	No later than 26 February 2026
4	The landlord must provide the resident with the information needed to request an improvement to the property and the process for this.	No later than 26 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 September 2024	The resident spoke to the landlord about additional external lighting outside her property. The landlord said it would arrange a visit to assess the issue. It would then raise the required works.
8 November 2024	The resident reported a leak coming from the loft area at her front door.
4 March 2025	The resident complained that the leak was outstanding. The leak had damaged the walls and caused damp and mould. The issue had been ongoing since 2021. She said it had caused her stress and the damp had affected her asthma.
8 March 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about the leak, damp, and mould. It said it would respond by 24 April 2025.
24 March 2025	The resident complained that the landlord had not installed additional lighting outside her property. She asked the landlord to install more lighting to the front, side, and rear of her property.
8 April 2025	The landlord acknowledged the leak, damp, and mould complaint. It said it would respond to the lighting complaint by 21 April 2025.
8 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response regarding the lighting complaint. It said it had visited and assessed the area. It found the current external lighting to be sufficient. It would visit the resident to discuss her request for lighting at the front of her property.
24 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response regarding the leak, damp, and mould. It said the roof repair was currently with its contractor, who would prioritise the job. It had asked its contractor to assess the damp and mould. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the repair and the impact of the damp and mould. It would award compensation after it completed the repairs.
22 July 2025	Following contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to escalate both issues to stage 2.
29 July 2025	The landlord informed the resident it had received our request.
30 July 2025	The landlord acknowledged both complaints. It said it would respond within 20 working days.
5 August 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response in relation to the lighting. It confirmed it would not be installing any more external lighting as the current lighting was sufficient. The resident’s request for additional lighting to the front of her property was an improvement and not a repair.
6 August 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response in relation to the leak, damp, and mould. It said it had completed the works to the roof in June 2025. It had arranged an internal inspection to assess the damage caused by the leak. It would address any repairs to restore the resident’s home. It had submitted a referral to the surveying team. If successful, it would assess and address the damp and mould. The resident should claim for any personal items damaged by the mould against her own contents insurance. If she did not have this, she should formally write to the landlord’s insurance team. It apologised and offered £700 compensation for the failure to recognise the impact due to the resident’s vulnerabilities and complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. She told us the leak was ongoing. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to complete a lasting repair to stop the leak. To address the damp and mould. To install more lighting at the front of her property. To increase the compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

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 handling of leaks, damp, and mould in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

What we won’t look at

7. The resident told us the damp and mould and the landlord’s handling of the issues affected 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. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we will look at

8. The Ombudsman issued a determination on a previous complaint about leaks, damp, and mould in the resident’s property on 2 October 2025. In this earlier complaint the landlord compensated the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused up to 5 September 2024. In this report, we will consider the landlord’s actions from when the resident next reported a leak into her property (November 2024 to December 2025. This is when the landlord completed the actions in its stage 2 complaint response.
9. On 8 November 2024 the resident reported a leak coming from the loft area by her front door. The landlord attended on the same date, which was within its 24-hour emergency timescale. It sent plumbers, instead of a roofing contractor. Although this was incorrect, it did not affect the overall outcome in this case. However, landlords should ensure its staff ask the right questions when a resident reports a repair to ensure it assigns the repair to the right trade.
10. The operative found the leak was coming from the roof and raised follow-on works. The landlord’s policy states it will complete follow-on works at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. We would expect the landlord to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale. What is reasonable depends on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. In this case, the landlord was aware there had been leaks at the resident’s property for years. It was also aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and that the leaks were causing damp and mould.
11. It completed the repair on 15 July 2025 which was 8 months after the resident reported it. Although the landlord had to rearrange appointments around the resident’s availability and employee sickness in February 2025, this delay was unreasonable.
12. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to be avoided or minimised in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The landlord as part of its obligations under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 must ensure the property is free from such hazards.
13. On 13 February 2025 and 4 March 2025 the resident told the landlord there were damp patches and mould growing on her bedroom, living room walls, and in the hallway cupboard where the leak was. She told it the damp and mould was affecting her breathing. The landlord said it would need to refer her to its healthy homes team. The resident said she would call back after the landlord had repaired the leak.
14. In April 2025 the resident asked the landlord to install more ventilation in her property. She told it she had followed the advice it had previously given her about opening windows in the winter. This did not make any difference, damp, and mould continued to appear around her windows and on walls in the property.
15. Following this contact the landlord escalated the resident’s requests internally. The landlord raised a new repair to assess the damp and mould and consider if it needed to install more vents to help with ventilation. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will visit the property within 20 working days of a report to understand the scale of the problem. The most recent damp and mould inspection was from February 2024, which was over 12 months beforehand. The issue may have worsened since then. The landlord knew it had not stopped the leak. It should have inspected and assessed the damp and mould. Had it done so, it would have known if there was anything it could do to mitigate the impact on the resident until it rectified the leak, such as a mould wash. The landlord did not visit and cancelled the repair. This was especially concerning as the landlord was aware the resident had asthma.
16. In its stage 2 complaint response on 6 August 2025 the landlord said it had arranged an internal inspection to assess the damage caused by the leak. The landlord should have completed the redecoration work by 3 September 2025. It attended on 7 August 2025 but there was no access. It completed the redecoration work on 11 November 2025, which was 49 working days outside its repair timescale. However, due to the no access and the landlord rearranging the appointments at the resident’s convenience, we cannot say this delay was unreasonable.
17. The landlord attempted to put things right by apologising and acknowledging the delay in resolving the leak. It submitted a referral to its surveying team. If successful, it would arrange an appointment to assess the damp and mould. It also offered compensation of £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise the impact on the resident due to her vulnerabilities.
18. The landlord’s failures in this case amount to maladministration. Because of the effect the delays had on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to increase its compensation to £1,200 (an increase of £600). This follows our guidance for situations where serious problems went on for a long time and made it hard for the resident to feel comfortable in their home.
19. We understand the resident had made an insurance claim for mould damage to her personal belongings in 2024. The insurance company offered a settlement which the resident declined. The resident has told us she submitted a new claim to the landlord’s insurers in December 2025. If the resident is unhappy with the outcome of this new claim she can refer it to the Financial Ombudsman Service for investigation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the request for additional external lighting.
Finding	Maladministration

20. The resident has told us she asked the landlord to install better lighting to the front of the property when she moved in, in May 2021. We encourage residents to make complaints early because as issues become historic, evidence becomes difficult to obtain and authenticate. This investigation will focus on events from September 2024 onwards, which the landlord considered during its complaint responses.
21. Landlords are responsible for providing and maintaining external lighting that is essential for the safety of the property’s access and to prevent identified hazards. Inadequate lighting in these areas significantly increases the risk of accidents, such as falls on level surfaces.
22. The resident raised the issue of poor lighting outside her property in September 2024. She said it made her feel unsafe when she was returning home in the dark. She had difficulty opening her door due to it being dark. She also referred to people congregating in communal areas outside her home. She said the Police had been involved.
23. The landlord said it would visit the resident to discuss the request. It would then raise any required works. Due to what the resident had reported, the landlord should have inspected quickly to check for hazards. There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to assess the risk until the resident raised her complaint in March 2025. This was approximately 6 months later.
24. In its stage 1 complaint response it said it completed a site visit on 2 April 2025. We have not seen the landlord’s inspection report for this visit. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place.
25. The landlord said it would not install additional lighting to the side of the resident’s property because it was not an access or escape route. There was no communal walkway to the rear of the properties. Based on this, it did not need to install any additional lighting.
26. It said it would visit the resident to discuss her service request to install additional lighting to the front of her property. It would contact her to arrange this by 11 April 2025.
27. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 April 2025 for an update. Due to the lack of adequate records, we do not know when the landlord visited the resident to discuss her request. We do not know what they discussed or what actions it agreed, if any. However, an internal file note dated 4 August 2025 indicates a visit had gone ahead. We have also seen photographs taken of the access path to the front of the resident’s property. The photographs show a lamp post in the middle of the row of properties. The resident’s property is at the end of that row.
28. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said 2 members of staff had visited the area and assessed the lighting provision. Based on the visits and photographs taken, it was satisfied there was adequate external lighting. It referred to the lamp post which it said was directly outside her home. It said this provided sufficient visibility at night. The resident’s request for more lighting at the front of her property was an improvement and not a repair. It would not be providing any more lighting.
29. The resident disagrees there is sufficient lighting from the lamp posts outside her home. She says the lamp post the landlord referred to is not directly outside her property. We understand there is another lamp post situated in the middle of the communal path directly facing the resident’s property. However, due to the resident’s property being in the corner, with lots of trees to the side, it can get very dark. She also feels because the landlord did not visit her when it was dark, it could not fully understand how dark it gets.
30. Whilst the resident may not agree with the outcome, the landlord visited the property and assessed the external communal lighting. It reached a decision that the current communal lighting was adequate based on the information from its visits.
31. Based on the evidence we have seen, we cannot be satisfied the landlord has fully assessed this request. We also cannot be satisfied it considered the resident’s vulnerability for mobility.
32. Due to the delay of 6 months to initially assess the external communal lighting, the poor record keeping, and not fully assessing the resident’s request, there was maladministration. The resident had to raise a complaint to get a response which was not acceptable. We have made an order that the landlord pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
33. We have also ordered the landlord to consider the resident’s request for additional lighting to the front of her property again. We recommend the landlord visits later in the afternoon when it is more likely to be dark. It must consider the resident’s mobility issues and consider the risk under the HHSRS. It should decide if it needs to install further lighting to resident’s home to reduce the risk. It must provide a written explanation to the resident of the reasons for its decision. It must provide the resident with information on how she can request permission to install a light herself, by way of an improvement.
34. In relation to the resident’s reports about people congregating. The landlord said it had not received any reports from the resident about this. It advised the resident to report any future incidents to it. It would investigate any reported incidents in line with its anti-social behaviour policy. This was reasonable.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

35. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales.

Complaint 1

2. At stage 1, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint by 11 March 2025. It should have sent its response no later than 25 March 2025 (15 working days in total). It acknowledged the complaint within its 5 working day timeframe. But there was a 41 working day delay in it sending its response (25 March 2025 to 24 April 2025). This was not consistent with its policy or the Code.
3. At stage 2, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s escalation by 29 July 2025. It should have sent its response no later than 26 August 2025 (25 working days in total). It confirmed it had received the resident’s escalation on 29 July 2025 and sent a formal acknowledgement letter on 30 July 2025. It sent its stage 2 complaint response on 6 August 2025. Although there was a 1-day delay in it acknowledging the complaint, this did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Complaint 2

4. At stage 1, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint by 31 March 2025. It should have sent its response no later than 14 April 2025. (15 working days in total). It did not acknowledge the complaint. This was not consistent with its policy or the Code. Its stage 1 complaint response was on time.
5. At stage 2, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s escalation by 29 July 2025. It should have sent its stage 2 complaint response no later than 26 August 2025 (25 working days in total). It confirmed it had received the resident’s escalation on 29 July 2025 and sent a formal acknowledgement letter on 30 July 2025. It sent its stage 2 complaint response on 5 August 2025. Although there was a 1-day delay in the landlord acknowledging the complaint, this did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.

36. The landlord acknowledged its failures in complaint 1. This included compensation of £100 for the resident’s time and effort in getting the complaint resolved. It did not recognise any failures in relation to complaint 2. The failures identified lead to a finding of service failure. Due to its failure to acknowledge complaint 2 at stage 1, we have ordered the landlord to increase its compensation to £150 (an increase of £50).

Learning

37. The landlord has a process by which one team raises repairs and another team can reject the repairs. This creates expectations for the resident that are then unfulfilled. It also means that the landlord mechanisms for raising and executing repairs are inefficient. The landlord should consider what it can do to ensure a more efficient process where repairs that are raised will be authorised.
38. The landlord failed to recognise any learning from the resident’s complaint. It should complete a review of this case to identify what went wrong and what it needs to do to prevent similar failures occurring in the future and to improve its overall service to residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. The landlord has not provided evidence of all inspection reports or visits. At times, this has affected our ability to assess its actions. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.

Communication

40. The resident had to chase the landlord for updates in relation to the repairs and her complaint. Whilst the landlord responded to some contacts, its communication and updates could have been better. The landlord should ensure it has a strategy in place for keeping residents informed.