London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202519749)

10Decision
Case ID	202519749
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	25 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom ground floor maisonette. She complained about leaks in the kitchen, living room and bedroom and related damp and mould. She wanted the landlord to resolve the issues and offer compensation. The resident, her son and his partner all communicated with the landlord. Throughout this report, they are all referred to as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks and associated damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp and mould.
4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to the leaks, damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to resolve repeated leaks and allowed serious problems in the home to continue for more than 22 months. It did not keep full records which meant inspections, safety advice, contractor actions and repairs progress were unclear. It also failed to manage its contractors, communicate clearly, or adequately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, including periods where the home was unsafe or unusable. Although it made significant offers of redress, it did not put things right for the resident through the complaints process.

The associated complaint

6. The landlord repeatedly failed to follow its complaints policy. It did not take ownership of the issues raised and did not recognise the impact of opening multiple stage 1 complaints. Its compensation offer for complaint handling was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

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 Chief Executive or a member of its Executive Team provides the apology 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 25 March 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £12,140.26 (as per the offers referred to below) to reflect the distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity caused to them by the failings in its handling of leaks, damp and mould: £1,710 compensation as offered to the resident in 2024. £8,509.05 compensation as offered to the resident in 2025. £1,921.21 as offered to the resident in January 2026.   The landlord must also pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble caused to them by its complaint handling failures.   These must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 25 March 2026
	Specific action The landlord must show it has resolved the downstairs leak and done repairs to fix the associated damage by the due date. If this work has not been completed, the landlord must take all steps to ensure the works are started no later than the due date. Documentary evidence of this must be shared with us by the due date.	No later than 25 March 2026
	Inspection order We’ve ordered a post-inspection because the leaks went on for a long time and we haven’t been given enough evidence to show the repairs were completed. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection, and it should be completed by the deadline. The inspection must be carried out by someone suitably qualified, and it should check the quality of the repair and redecoration work to the downstairs leak and the kitchen. It should include an update on the replacement of piping across the building and provide a timeline for this if it is still outstanding. A written record of the inspection must be shared with both this Service and the resident.	No later than 25 April 2026
	Specific action The landlord should review its complaint handling failures and respond to the resident’s concern about “appalling complaint handling”. The review should address the failures identified in this report. A written record of the review should be sent to the resident and this Service by the due date.	No later than 25 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
December 2023 to January 2024	The resident reported multiple leaks.
1 February 2024	The resident made a stage 1 complaint. They said water was running down the walls, there was thick black mould, and they were worried the ceiling would collapse. They said 1 bedroom, the kitchen and living room were unusable because of leak damage.
9 February 2024	The landlord issued its first stage 1 response and said there was a plan for outstanding repairs.
10 to 23 February 2024	The bedroom ceiling collapsed. The resident escalated his complaint because he said the ongoing issues were first reported in 2020. The landlord recorded that the rest of the ceiling was a collapse risk. The resident told it the leak continued throughout property. The landlord said it would replace all pipework in the building to prevent further leaks.
19 March 2024	The landlord sent another stage 1 response. It acknowledged a delay in resolving the leak and replacing the damaged ceiling area. It offered £470 for inconvenience, distress, time and effort and complaint handling.
March to May 2024	A contractor investigated the upstairs and downstairs leaks. The landlord marked this work as repaired, decorated and complete. The resident said he was unhappy with communication and the problem was unresolved.
31 May 2024	The landlord sent a stage 2 response. It said it had repaired the collapsed ceiling, but full redecoration was the resident’s responsibility. It offered £640 compensation for distress and inconvenience and poor complaint handling.
6 June 2024	The landlord recorded further follow on work was needed.
31 July 2024	The resident told the landlord there had been no communication and nothing had been done.
22 August 2024	The landlord sent another stage 1 response about the ongoing leak causing damp in downstairs rooms. It apologised for its service and offered £460 compensation for distress, inconvenience and time and effort.
10 October 2024	The resident raised a stage 2 complaint because nothing had progressed since January 2024.
28 October 2024	The landlord sent a stage 2 response. It said work would be completed by 18 November 2024. It apologised for the delay and offered compensation made up of £40 for time and effort and £200 for distress and inconvenience.
19 August 2025	The landlord recorded that the significant works to the downstairs rooms affected by the leak and damp had not yet been completed.
Autumn 2025	The resident told this Service that the works to the downstairs rooms were completed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. They wanted an apology and the landlord to acknowledge its failures. We are aware that the landlord proposed further compensation of £8,509.05 and £1,941.21 in August 2025 and January 2026 respectively.

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 response to the leaks, damp and mould
Finding	Severe maladministration

What we investigated 

7. The resident asked us to investigate all 2024 complaints. We have considered both sets of 2024 complaints because they formed part of the landlord’s stage 2 response in October 2024 and were a continuation of the same problem. We have also reviewed whether the landlord put things right as proposed in the October 2024 response.
8. The resident told us they were unhappy with the landlord’s response to leaks reported since 2020. They raised a stage 2 complaint in August 2023 and this was not brought to the Ombudsman at the time. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord within a reasonable time of the events happening and to bring these to us within 12 months of receiving a response. It is not possible for us to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back to 2020. Therefore, the focus of this investigation is events from December 2023 onwards when the resident began to raise regular new concerns about water ingress. We refer to events before this for context.

Leaks, damp and mould

9. From at least 2023, there were ongoing leaks from the bedroom ceiling and in the downstairs kitchen. There was a pattern of the landlord receiving reports and undertaking some investigations, but of the underlying issues not being resolved. The landlord was aware there was a problem with the type of pipework used across the whole block and that this was causing regular leaks. It failed to evidence when, or if, the piping was replaced despite recording in February 2024 that this was necessary. We are therefore unable to assess that its actions were reasonable.

Leak from above

10. A priority job was raised on 29 January 2024 and the landlord inspected this within its repairs policy 24-hour timeframe. However, it failed to record the findings of this inspection.
11. The resident complained 3 times in 9 days about water running down the bedroom wall and concern that the ceiling would collapse. The ceiling collapsed on 10 February 2024. The contractor attended and recorded the other side of the ceiling may be at risk of collapse too. There is no record of any safety information given to the resident at this point, such as instructions not to use the bedroom, or an assessment of whether temporary accommodation was necessary. There is no record of the work the landlord undertook when the ceiling collapsed. These record keeping failures mean it is not possible for us to assess that the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
12. There was a pattern of the landlord being unclear on the work started or completed by the contractors and confusion over which contractor was responsible for specific jobs.
13. The landlord told the resident its contractor would reboard the ceiling on 20 March 2024. The repairs record shows a complete repair to “investigate water leaking” on 21 March 2024 but record keeping failures mean it is not possible to assess what work took place at this time.
14. In May 2024 the resident said they were unhappy the landlord would not do any redecoration following the ceiling leak and collapse. Although redecoration is the responsibility of the resident under the tenancy agreement, the damage was likely worsened by the delays in resolving the leak(s) and the landlord should have considered repairing the ceiling ‘like for like’.

Leak from below

15. The landlord ordered a priority repair for a leak from an unknown source on 29 January 2024. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated this was for the downstairs leak. The resident reported the carpet from the entrance to the living room had been “waterlogged for days” on 2 February 2024.
16. The landlord told the resident the contractors were unable to resolve the issue, and the repair was handed back to it on 19 February 2024. It asked the resident to ask their housing officer for more information. This was a failure to update the resident and set clear expectations.
17. In February 2024 the landlord identified access problems to the site and heating pressure system because the contractor had lost the access keys. This delayed the planned repairs to the piping and was an example of poor contractor management.
18. In May 2024 the contractor excavated the kitchen, living room floor and walls. The landlord supplied the resident with a microwave and hob plate while the kitchen was unusable. On 31 July 2024 the resident told the landlord they were very upset at the conditions they were living in (particularly the representative’s elderly mother). The landlord failed to acknowledge concerns about the household vulnerability at this stage.
19. During August 2024 the landlord identified the contractor had not completed the works because of communication errors. There was failure by the landlord to effectively monitor its contractor. On 30 August 2024 it told the resident the contractor would contact them to arrange works. During this time the resident was living with a significant downstairs leak and the landlord failed to follow its repairs policy timescales.
20. The resident declined a temporary housing offer in October 2024 because of her health needs. The landlord agreed to provide temporary cooking facilities instead, which was reasonable. However, it failed to record, or risk assess the “health needs” which led the resident to decline temporary housing and how these might impact her living in a property where the downstairs was flooded and unusable for an extended period.
21. The contractor told the landlord it would do works between 4 and 18 November 2024. Internal communication shows confusion over who would tell the resident this. There was a failure between the landlord and contractor to communicate clearly with the resident which likely led to distress and uncertainty.
22. The landlord repair records from November 2024 do not include full details of the work undertaken by the contractor. The screed flooring and kitchen were removed and “lots of water” was seen. On 18 and 27 November 2024 the resident reported the kitchen was “unusable, the entire downstairs was flooded, and the problem was getting worse”.
23. On 6 December 2024 the landlord recorded the downstairs flooring had been removed and extensive excavation found a burst water main leaking into the property. It recorded there would be delays and internally discussed offering temporary housing again. It noted the resident was receiving treatment for cancer. The landlord discussed some alternative accommodation options with the resident. However, we are unable to assess if the landlord’s actions were reasonable because it failed to record if it made any formal offers or considered any hazards caused to the resident by the property condition.
24. The landlord recorded that the burst main pipe was repaired on 17 April 2025. This was 15 months after a priority leak was reported and significantly outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timeframe. Additionally, the kitchen was not usable during this period.
25. In June 2025 the resident told the landlord it was 4 years since they had first reported leaks and asked, “when this nightmare will end”. The landlord told us in August 2025 that there was a significant amount of kitchen works outstanding, including the fitting of a new kitchen and completion of plastering. The resident told us the downstairs works were finally completed in November 2025. The use of the resident’s kitchen was significantly impacted for at least 22 months which was a serious failing when assessed against the landlord’s obligations under its repairs policy and the tenancy agreement.
26. In response to concerns about damage caused by the leak, the landlord appropriately referred the resident to its insurance to make a damaged belongings claim.

Conclusion

27. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to put things right over an extended period of time and this had a serious impact on the household living conditions. The leaks and long delays had a major impact on the resident. She was without a working kitchen for over a year and said she was very distressed by the ongoing damage. She told us she was a “clean and proud” woman and felt she had “not had a home” during this period.
28. The landlord missed several chances to put things right over at least 22 months. It knew about the resident’s vulnerabilities but did not record temporary accommodation offers or any risk assessments. It also failed to record key information, including inspection findings, safety advice, contractor actions and repair outcomes.
29. The landlord offered the resident a total of £1,710 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and effort across 2024 by the point it reviewed its actions in October 2024. This amount was in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there were serious failings by a landlord that had a severe long-term impact.
30. However, the continued failings beyond October 2024 meant the landlord did not put things right through the complaints process and did not learn sufficient lessons from its earlier acknowledged failings. Further, it should have considered awarding an amount to reflect the periods where the resident did not have full use of the bedroom, living room and kitchen.
31. We know that the landlord later offered an additional £8,509.05 in 2025 and £1,921.21 in early 2026 for the same failings. We have therefore not ordered further compensation because the total award is in the range that we would have ordered to reflect the continued distress, inconvenience, time and trouble and loss of amenity up to January 2026. Nevertheless, we have still found severe maladministration because the landlord failed to put things right through the complaints process and a suitable offer of redress was not made until significantly after the October 2024 stage 2 response.
32. The landlord must also show it has completed the leak repairs, addressed the associated damage and carried out a post-inspection.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

33. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Codes in this case were the 2023 and 2024 editions. The landlord had a published complaints policy which complied with the Code in respect of timescales.
34. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint from 1 February 2024 within its policy timescale but failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalations on 10 and 19 February 2024. It acknowledged a second stage 1 complaint on 14 February and 12 March 2024. This was not in line with its policy which said the complaint should have been escalated. It incorrectly issued a second stage 1 response on 19 March 2024. This should have been a stage 2 response.
35. The resident escalated the complaint again on 21 March 2024 and contacted the landlord 3 further times to express dissatisfaction in April and May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 outside of its policy timeframe on 14 May 2024. It then issued a stage 2 response within its policy timescale on 31 May 2024.
36. The resident said he was “appalled” at how the complaint was being handled on 31 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged this as another stage 1 complaint on 1 August 2024. This was within the required timescale but its stage 1 response of 22 August 2024 was unreasonably delayed. It did not respond to the resident’s point about poor complaint handling.
37. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s October stage 2 escalation within its policy timeframe. However, it failed to do what it had agreed to in its October 2024 stage 2 response.
38. The complaint handling process did not lead to it taking ownership of its commitments and it did not respond appropriately when the resident reported the landlord had not done what it said it would. This was not in line with the Code and has been assessed elsewhere in this report.
39. The landlord offered £100 for its complaint handling failures between February and May 2024 but did not acknowledge the impact of opening multiple stage 1 complaints. It did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures in August 2024. It added an additional £20 for complaint handling failings in January 2026.
40. Considering the Ombudsman’s outcomes and remedies guidance, and the landlord’s compensation policy, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident said they were caused significant time, trouble and distress by the complaint handling failures and the landlord did not do what it said it would in its complaints process. We have ordered £200 compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has an obligation to provide us with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. The landlord’s records provided prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint were incomplete and did not record what occurred at appointments. The landlord’s complaint responses suggest there were some visits which were not recorded at all. This was a record keeping failure and likely impacted the landlord’s ability to assess and monitor repairs.
42. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance highlights the importance of gathering feedback and conducting inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory. In this case, there were continued failures to quality check agreed repairs had been raised and started, both before and after the formal complaints. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s requests for the agreed stage 2 actions to be completed. We’ve asked the landlord to conduct a learning review.

Communication

43. The landlord generally did not proactively communicate with the resident. There was a pattern of the resident chasing the landlord to ask when the repairs would be started and completed. The landlord did not communicate within an expected timeframe. It should ensure that it has systems in place to offer pro-active updates to residents where repairs are not completed promptly.