London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202519819)

Decision
Case ID	202519819
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about repairs after returning to her property following staying in alternative accommodation provided by the landlord while it completed repairs. She asked to be rehoused. The landlord has health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs.
2. damp and mould.
3. the resident’s rehousing request.
4. the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
4. 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 handling of repairs

The landlord took too long to complete some of the repairs.

The handling of damp and mould

The landlord initially failed to follow its damp and mould policy. It delayed completing repairs.

The handling of the resident’s rehousing request

The landlord provided information about its rehousing criteria in line with its policies.

The complaint handling

The landlord responded on time but failed to address all parts of the complaint.

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 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £950 made up as follows: £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its 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. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	27 February 2026
3	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 extractor fan/vents, damp and mould, leaks, and the bedroom ceiling 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 issues. 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 to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the wors. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	27 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord to contact the resident about her complaint that it had incorrectly told her she declined a property offer. It should consider if it needs to open a further complaint about this.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 September 2024	The resident moved back into her home after a period in temporary accommodation. This was while repairs were completed as part of a previous disrepair claim from 2021.
17 June 2025	The resident complained about repair issues since moving back into the property. She asked to be rehoused.
4 July 2025	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said: The previous legal disrepair case was settled. Repairs were outstanding. Access to its direct let register was limited. It provided details about the process for a medical move and a form. It apologised for the time taken and offered £625 compensation.
4 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. The resident said the damp and mould remained. She asked to be rehoused.
1 August 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2. It said: The resident raised a complaint in June 2025 about a repair to damp and mould. It had paid £100 compensation. New repairs were not part of the closed legal disrepair case. Works it raised following a damp and mould inspection were outstanding. It had reraised this. It completed repairs to the bathroom and toilet leak.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and compensation. She brought the complaint to us. The resident said repairs were outstanding.
After the end of the complaints process	The resident made a further complaint in October 2025. This was about a leak from her toilet and being without water to her property. The landlord responded at stage 2 in December 2025.

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 repairs
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident communicated with the landlord about a legal disrepair claim in 2021. This included a temporary move to another property during repairs. In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed it settled the claim in September 2024. It did not investigate the disrepair claim. We have not investigated this matter. Our investigation focuses on the repairs raised from October 2024 onwards which the landlord addressed in its final complaint response on 1 August 2025.
The resident has raised issues which have occurred since this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident raised a further complaint to the landlord in October 2025 about a leak to the toilet and loss of water. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 19 December 2025. The resident can bring this complaint to us for investigation should she be dissatisfied with the stage 2 response.
The resident told us the situation had a detrimental impact on 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’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

Bathroom leaks

The landlord’s records show the resident called on 23 January 2025. She reported a wall was wet in the hallway due to a historic bath leak. The landlord had completed repairs to a leak under the bath or basin during the previous works. There was no evidence it raised new works to investigate leaks until April 2025. Its repairs policy at this time said it aimed to complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days. It should have raised an inspection within this time and completed any necessary works. It booked an appointment on 8 April 2025 to inspect for leaks on 11 June 2025. It was not clear why it did not book a repair sooner. The job report stated that it found no leaks in the bathroom.
A leak was reported out of hours on 21 June 2025 from the resident’s bathroom into the flat below. The repair report stated the bathroom waste and overflow under the bath had snapped. Its records show the landlord attended on the same day in line with its repairs policy. Its records marked the renewal of the bathroom waste and overflow as completed on 23 June 2025.
The resident told us her toilet broke in October 2024. The landlord’s records show it repaired the toilet in November 2024. It received no further reports about the toilet until 11 June 2025. On this date, it raised a repair for a containable toilet leak. It attended on 17 June 2025. It then raised follow‑on works to replace the cistern.
The landlord’s records show a no‑access appointment on 26 June 2025. There is no evidence the resident agreed to this date. The records note a voicemail left for the resident on 20 June 2025. This met the tenancy requirement for it to give at least 24 hours notice for access for repairs. However, the landlord also contacted the resident on 25 June 2025 to bring a repair appointment forward to 26 June 2025 for the same issue and noted that the resident was unavailable. The landlord failed to update its records to reflect this.
At stage 1, the landlord confirmed a follow‑on toilet repair was booked for 8 July 2025. It completed this as promised. The work took 19 working days, which met the 20‑working‑day routine repair target set out in its repairs policy effective from May 2025. During this period, the resident was without water around 6 and 7 July 2025. The records show the landlord supplied water on 7 July 2025.
On 9 July 2025, the resident told the landlord the toilet had been replaced but there were holes in the wall. She said there was still a leak into the flat below. The landlord’s records note a call from the resident on 10 July 2025. She told it she had been without water again and a plumbing appointment was scheduled for the next day. We have not seen records of that appointment or its outcome. However, there is no evidence of further reports of bathroom leaks until October 2025. The landlord raised work to make good the hole in the wall on 15 August 2025. It attended on 19 August 2025, and recorded no fault found. Noting it had already repaired the damaged plaster.

Flooring

The landlord raised a repair to damaged flooring on 11 June 2025. Although it is unclear when the resident first reported the issue. At stage 1, the landlord said it attended on 18 June 2025 and ordered materials. Its records show it completed the repair on 7 August 2025 as promised at stage 1. An overall timeframe of 41 working days. This exceeded the landlord’s 20‑working‑day target.

Tiles

At stage 1, the landlord said it completed regrouting bathroom tiles on 11 June 2025. It did not explain when the repair was first raised. Its records show it booked the job with the resident on 8 April 2025. This was outside of the 20-calendar day timescale for repairs at the time it was raised.

Extractor fan

The landlord’s records show it previously raised a repair on 28 January 2025 for a non‑working bathroom extractor fan. It completed this on 12 February 2025, within the 20-calendar day routine‑repair target in its repairs policy at the time. It is unclear when the resident reported any further issues with the extractor fan. A damp and mould inspection on 6 March 2025 recorded the extractor and vents as being in good working order.
On 1 May 2025, the landlord raised a repair to fix a fault with an extractor fan. In its stage 1 response on 4 July 2025, it said the repair to an extractor fan was outstanding. It confirmed an appointment for 8 July 2025. It did not explain the delay. The records show the landlord completed this appointment as promised. However, on 12 July 2025 it raised further work on the same order to replace the vent. Internal records show the landlord booked an appointment for 10 November 2025. It is unclear if it completed this. The resident told us in January 2026 that ventilation repairs are outstanding. The landlord said at stage 1 that it would continue progressing outstanding actions and keep the resident updated. There is no evidence it did so.

Repairs summary

In both its stage 1 response and internal correspondence, the landlord categorised the bathroom tiles and extractor‑fan/vent repairs as legal disrepair. However, it had already told the resident that it closed the disrepair case in September 2024 and all works were complete. This inconsistency created unclear communication. It likely caused confusion. It also failed to acknowledge the outstanding extractor fan repair and the further leak issues the resident reported after the 8 July 2025 repair.
Overall, the landlord did not complete all repairs within the timescales in its repairs policy. Its complaint responses acknowledged the length of time the resident waited for repairs. It said it could have managed communication and repairs more swiftly and apologised. There is no evidence the bathroom leaks resulted from previous repairs failing. However, the ongoing issues likely caused the resident frustration, as she had to raise further repairs shortly after returning to the property and chase outstanding ones. The landlord’s communication about outstanding repairs was poor. It did not demonstrate that it proactively managed the works or kept the resident updated in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord attempted to put things right by completing repairs and offering compensation. It offered £600 for distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble. It did not explain which specific repairs this related to. Its final response failed to acknowledge that the extractor‑fan repair remained outstanding, even though it had identified this issue at stage 1. It missed the opportunity to follow up and complete the work sooner. As a result, the compensation did not go far enough to fully remedy the complaint. We have ordered additional compensation of £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance for where the remedy is not quite proportionate to the failings we have identified.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s records show the resident contacted it on 23 January 2025. She reported the skirting board in the hallway had separated from the wall, possibly due to damp. She also said the hallway wall was wet. Under its damp and mould policy, the landlord should agree a property assessment within 20 working days. There is no evidence it carried out an assessment at this stage. As such, it failed to follow its damp and mould policy.
On 14 February 2025, the resident told the landlord that damp had reappeared in the hallway. The landlord raised a works order on 24 February 2025. It completed an inspection and mould clean on 6 March 2025. This met its damp and mould policy requirement to inspect within 20 working days.
The inspection found moisture damage to the hallway wall and skirting from an ongoing leak. It also identified plaster damage to the bedroom ceiling from a previous leak. The landlord raised the necessary repairs on 27 March 2025, in line with its damp and mould policy. This requires it to raise remedial works within 10 working days.
The damp and mould policy requires the landlord to carry out repairs in line with its repairs policy. The policy at the time of the inspection said it aimed to complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days. In its final response on 1 August 2025, the landlord acknowledged these repairs were still outstanding. It said it addressed this in a previous complaint. For which it awarded £100 compensation. Internal emails indicate that this earlier complaint was raised on 10 June 2025. We have not seen a copy of the complaint or the response.
The landlord’s records show it internally reraised the repairs on 31 July 2025. It completed these on 27 August 2025. This was over 5 months after the damp and mould inspection. It failed to meet the timescales in its policies.
During the complaints process, the resident said damp and mould was affecting her health. On 24 June 2025, she told the landlord she had asthma and was struggling to breathe because of mould in the property. The landlord confirmed to us that it had recorded her health vulnerabilities. Our 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs recommends that landlords act promptly when issues significantly affect residents. The landlord’s vulnerable‑residents policy says support may include prioritising health‑and‑safety repairs. The landlord failed to take this into account when responding. It also failed to consider whether a further mould treatment was needed, given that the previous clean had taken place 3 months earlier.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for communication failures. Its records do not show that it kept the resident appropriately updated on the repairs. This was not in line with its damp and mould policy which says it will be clear with residents on timescales and keep them informed. There is no evidence it shared the inspection outcome with the resident until it attached this to the stage 1 response on 4 July 2025.
Damp and mould in the hallway, along with rainwater damage to the bedroom ceiling, were previously repaired under the legal disrepair claim. The landlord confirmed these works were completed. The reoccurrence of these issues in early 2025 likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In January 2026, the resident told us that damp and mould had returned and repairs to the bedroom ceiling were still outstanding. It is unclear whether she has reported the damp and mould to the landlord. The landlord’s damp and mould policy suggests actions to eliminate damp and mould. This includes regular monitoring of the situation where appropriate. Given that the resident keeps reporting damp and mould in the same area, it is a failing that the landlord has not monitored this. The issues have reappeared twice now within a short period. It is uncertain whether the landlord has fully resolved them. As such, we have made an inspection order.
The landlord did not identity its failings to the outstanding damp and mould repairs at stage 1. Or its failure to raise an inspection earlier, following the resident’s contact on 23 January 2025. At stage 2 it part upheld the complaint due to outstanding repairs. It did not offer any further compensation. It took into consideration the £100 compensation paid for the delay to the repairs under a previous complaint. It said the repairs would be completed but did not provide a timeframe. This was not enough to remedy the failures we have identified and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered additional compensation of £200.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request
Finding	No maladministration

We cannot decide if a landlord should rehouse a resident. We have investigated if it acted in line with its policies and procedures in its response to the request.
The resident said the landlord told her, she would be permanently moved. She also said the landlord had incorrectly told her she had declined a property. The landlord did not respond to this issue. We have investigated this in the complaints handling section.
The resident said she wanted the landlord to rehouse her. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained the criteria for its direct let register. Its explanation was in line with its allocations and lettings policy. This says to access the rehousing list a resident must be at immediate risk or have a severe medical condition or disability.
The landlord provided the resident with a medical assessment form at both complaint stages. This was appropriate given she had said her health was affected. It also asked her to supply evidence so it could assess her circumstances. This was in line with its policy. This requires independently verifiable information to confirm an applicant meets one or more of the rehousing criteria. It is unclear if the resident returned the form. The landlord resent this to the resident on 8 October 2025 after a telephone call about rehousing.
At stage 1, the landlord also appropriately provided details about other housing options and explained the likely timescales involved to set the resident’s expectations. Overall, its response was reasonable and inline with its policy.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with the timescales in the Code.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint on time at both stages. In its stage 1 response, it offered the resident £25 compensation for poor complaint handling. It was not clear what this related to.
In her complaint, the resident raised concerns that the landlord had incorrectly told her she had declined a property offered previously. She said she had been told she would be permanently rehoused. It did not provide a response to these specific concerns. There is no evidence the landlord addressed this part of the complaint in a previous complaint. It failed to comply with the Code and address all points raised. As such we have ordered a total of £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for where the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged a failure.

Learning

The landlord’s complaint response did not fully address all parts of the complaint. It should ensure staff are familiar with the requirements of the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

While it confirmed the date it raised repairs, the landlord did not provide full details of each repair report from the resident. Landlords should maintain a robust record of contacts. Clear, accurate, and accessible records provide an audit trail.

Communication

The landlord failed to appropriately keep the resident updated on the progress of outstanding repairs.