London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202525025)

Decision
Case ID	202525025
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	31 March 2026

Background

1. The resident reported experiencing damp and mould in her home since she moved in. She said water came up through the floor during rainfall. She believed this was due to drainage problems outside the property. She also reported damage to her furniture. She raised a complaint as she felt the landlord had not resolved the problem. She also told the landlord she was concerned about the impact on her daughter’s breathing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and water ingress.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and water ingress.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord took some steps to address the resident’s concerns by arranging surveys, inspections and completing repairs. However, it significantly delayed progressing key works that it had identified as necessary. This included repairs raised in April 2025, which it did not approve with the contractor until July 2025. Its records show works to address damp, mould, and water ingress remain outstanding. These timescales unreasonably exceeded those in the landlord’s repairs policy and its obligation under its damp and mould policy to manage damp and mould using a risk‑based approach. During this period, the resident repeatedly chased for updates and raised concerns about the impact of living in the property on her family’s health. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the impact of the delays on the family’s health. Although it apologised at stage 2 and offered £500, this was not proportionate to the level inconvenience and distress caused, or the ongoing uncertainty for the resident.
6. The landlord handled the stage 2 complaint appropriately once it had logged it, including contacting the resident to discuss her concerns. However, before the stage 2 escalation, the resident had asked the landlord on 13 December 2024 and 11 February 2025 for support in progressing her complaint. The landlord has not provided evidence that it acknowledged these requests or assisted her, which was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code’s requirements to be accessible and to support residents through the process. The landlord also did not address this issue in its stage 2 response.

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 04 May 2026
2	Inspection and confirmation of outstanding works The landlord must confirm whether a suitably qualified surveyor has already inspected the property following the Awaab’s Law notification. If an inspection has taken place, the landlord must: provide the resident and us with a written summary of the findings confirm the current position on all outstanding works it previously identified, including: investigation and remediation of leak affecting the ground floor taking a core sample of the ground‑floor build‑up from the cupboard in the living room any repairs arising from the follow‑on inspection with its contractor any identified damp and mould issues set out a clear action plan with timescales for completing the outstanding works If an inspection has not taken place, the landlord must: arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect the property to assess damp, mould and all sources of water ingress ensure the surveyor produces a written report with photographs confirm whether the property is fit for human habitation and if it is not provide suitable alternative accommodation identify the most likely cause of the damp and water ingress confirm which repairs it is responsible for, with reasons provide a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the damp and mould, including: investigation of the leak affecting the ground floor taking and analysing the core sample any necessary drainage‑related works provide timescales to commence and complete the work The landlord must provide copies of this information to the resident and to us no later than the due date.	No later than 04 May 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,275, made up of: £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct from this the £500 offered in the complaints process if it has already been paid.	No later than 04 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should reconfirm its position to the resident about compensation for her damaged possessions and flooring. It previously recommended that the resident contact its insurance team, but it has not provided evidenced that it has replied to her later concerns. The landlord should clarify whether its advice remains the same, confirm the status of any insurance claim, and set out its position on any compensation directly with the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She reported persistent damp, mould, and condensation since moving into the property. She said the issues damaged her flooring and her home smelled of damp. She asked the landlord to resolve the problem.
20 August 2024	The landlord responded to the complaint. It apologised for the delay in addressing the damp and mould. It said it had closed the resident’s original repair request as its contractor had tried several times to call her to arrange an appointment but had been unable to get through. The landlord confirmed it had re-raised the repair and the contractor would contact the resident to book an appointment. It asked the resident to take the contractor’s call so the work could go ahead. It confirmed that the resident would have a dedicated point of contact.
15 August 2025	The landlord recorded that the resident escalated her complaint, but it did not supply records showing the basis for the escalation. The resident later emailed confirming the escalation on 17 August 2025. She explained that: water was entering the property when it rained the flooring in every room downstairs was saturated she was experiencing mould and pests. She asked for copies of surveyor reports and said her home was not fit to live in.
17 September 2025	The landlord said its contractor inspected the property in September 2024. It found high moisture readings but no leaks and suggested rising groundwater and poor ventilation as possible causes. A surveyor later visited and recommended works to improve ventilation and drainage. The landlord said the approval process with its contractor was lengthy and did not confirm the works until 27 July 2025. The landlord said the works required scaffolding and that it had limited appointment options due to the resident’s availability, with the next suitable dates expected in October 2025. It said it had asked its team to liaise with the contractor and keep the resident updated. The landlord upheld the complaint, acknowledging the long delay and its impact. It awarded £500 compensation: £400 for inconvenience (20 months) £100 for time and effort. It said it had raised a task to provide updates on the outstanding works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had not resolved longstanding issues with damp, mould and saturated flooring in the living room, hallway, toilet, and kitchen when it rained. She said the landlord had not found the source of the problem, repairs had been ineffective, and the landlord had not contacted her about further appointments for over a month. She also reported that the damp and mould were worsening, had spread to additional rooms, and that some of her belongings had been damaged.   She said she wanted the landlord to: identify and resolve the cause of the damp, mould and wet flooring. dry the affected areas and replace the damaged flooring, reimburse her for damaged furnishings provide compensation for stress, inconvenience and the impact on her daughter’s health.

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 the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and water ingress.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

7. The resident complained in August 2024. The only report of damp and mould that the landlord recorded within the previous 12 months was on 2 January 2024, so we have considered its actions from that date onwards.
8. As part of her complaint, the resident has raised concerns that the damp and mould was impacting her and her family’s health. We acknowledge this has been a very difficult time for the resident and her family. However, 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 have considered

9. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 2 January 2024. She said rising damp affected the living room, hallway and toilet and had damaged her flooring and decorations. The landlord raised a mould wash order and sent condensation advice on 10 January 2024, which was appropriate. The landlord’s damp and mould policy requires it to identify and resolve the cause promptly and apply a risk-based approach. The policy also requires an assessment within 20 working days where residents report damp or mould.
10. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 10 January 2024 confirming it had closed the repair and asking her to contact it to arrange an appointment. The landlord closed the repair on 5 February 2024 after reporting ‘no access’. This followed its contractor procedures. However, the resident works as a teacher and had previously told the landlord she may be difficult to reach by phone during the day. There is no evidence that the landlord had sent her any written notice of an appointment. The landlord’s repairs policy says it must work with residents to agree access. The landlord did not follow up or email the resident. It missed an opportunity to investigate a potentially serious repair issue and allowed the matter to drift.
11. There was then a gap in progress until 22 July 2024, when the landlord raised roof related repair orders. The landlord confirmed it found no evidence of leaks from the roof. The resident clarified she had never reported roof issues, but that rainfall caused water from the main drain in the mews to enter her home, leading to damp, mould and damaged belongings. This showed the landlord had misunderstood her concerns, causing further delay in addressing the original damp and mould.
12. In its stage 1 response of 20 August 2024, the landlord said it had re-raised the damp and mould job. However, on 11 September 2024, the contractor told the landlord it had not received the job, as the landlord had not allocated it correctly. There is no evidence that the landlord explained this error to the resident, leading the resident to chase progress on 9 September 2024. This poor communication with the contractor caused avoidable uncertainty and delay.
13. The landlord carried out a Healthy Homes assessment on 12 September 2024. This identified high moisture readings above 30%, possible rising groundwater, raised garden levels, poor drainage, damage to flooring, and ventilation issues in a cupboard. The contractor also provided advice about cleaning the mould and checked the resident understood how to manage condensation, in line with its policy. The resident advised that the landlord subsequently completed a mould wash on 28 October 2024. The damp and mould policy requires the landlord to take responsibility for identifying the underlying cause and to raise follow on repairs within 10 working days of assessment. It also requires clear communication with residents about timescales. The landlord raised an inspection request for a surveyor on 17 September 2024 but cancelled this on 29 November 2024. The landlord did not progress structural repairs promptly, despite identifying issues consistent with rising or penetrating damp, which fall within the landlord’s responsibility under its repairs policy.
14. Between September and December 2024 the resident repeatedly asked what action the landlord would take to stop water entering her home during rainfall. On 20 November 2024 the landlord told the resident it had booked an appointment on 5 December 2024. This was for a thorough inspection of the resident’s home with a view to book follow on works. The resident called the landlord on 5 December 2024 to state that nobody turned up. The landlord made notes on 29 November 2024 that it had to cancel the work as it was a complex job requiring extra time and needed a surveyor to inspect and carry out works to the drainage. It did not tell the resident.
15. The repairs policy requires the landlord to apologise, rearrange appointments and keep residents informed. The landlord did not follow its policy, and the resident experienced avoidable inconvenience. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2024 to raise concerns about how the damp and mould were impacting the health of the household, including concerns about her daughter having breathing difficulties. The landlord has not provided evidence that it considered escalating repairs, despite significant delay and evidence of vulnerability.
16. The resident said damp and mould had damaged her furniture. The landlord emailed her on 19 November 2024 to say it could not accept liability and she could contact its insurance team. This was consistent with her tenancy agreement and repairs policy, and the landlord reasonably provided its insurance details. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it responded to the resident’s update requests. The resident continued to chase for compensation for her possessions. The lack of response likely caused further distress. We do not have jurisdiction over decisions made by insurers and cannot determine liability for damage to possessions, but the landlord should reconfirm its position to the resident.
17. There was then a gap in communication until 3 February 2025, where the landlord raised an inspection order. The landlord has provided records that state it arranged a surveyor for 19 February 2025. While it was appropriate for the surveyor to inspect the property, it had taken the landlord more than a year from the first report of damp and mould to arrange this. The landlord did not provide notes from the inspection. On 16 April 2025 the landlord raised extensive investigative and drainage works, including opening up the floor, inspecting the damp proof course, a CCTV drainage survey and cleaning rainwater pipework. This showed the landlord was taking an investigative approach, in line with its damp and mould policy. However, the landlord’s records show repeated cancellations, unclear instructions, and administrative errors. The landlord and contractor did not approve the works until 22 July 2025, more than 3 months later and significantly outside the 20-working day (or 40 day complex works) timeframes in its repairs policy. The landlord did not keep the resident informed during this period.
18. The resident said the landlord completed drainage works in August 2025. The landlord has not provided repair records to show what was done or whether it addressed the April 2025 investigative works orders. It also recorded that it erected scaffolding on 20 August 2025 to clear ivy as part of it addressing the damp and mould, but there is no evidence of what was undertaken. This lack of documentation means there is no evidence to demonstrate a clear or effective sequence of repairs. On 22 August 2025 the resident reported that the landlord had not put scaffolding and had only taken photos. The landlord’s notes show it arranged the 20 August appointment on 7 August 2025, and in its 17 September 2025 stage 2 response it said further dates were limited by the resident’s availability until October 2025. However, without records of what occurred on 20 August 2025, we cannot be sure that the delay resulted from the resident’s availability.
19. In its stage 2 acknowledgement of 19 August 2025 the landlord asked the resident about vulnerabilities. Given that the resident had informed the landlord in December 2024 that she was concerned about the impact on her daughter’s health it was unreasonable that it hadn’t asked the resident about this sooner. The resident raised concerns about the property’s safety and said she felt the landlord should move her to temporary accommodation. The landlord has not shown that it considered these concerns or assessed whether her home remained safe to occupy, contrary to its risk-based obligations under the damp and mould policy.
20. The resident continued to report water rising through the ground in multiple rooms, lifting flooring, and causing ongoing damp and mould. She raised concerns about pests, damaged belongings and the impact on her and her daughter’s health. The landlord acknowledged these concerns, but we have not seen evidence that it responded in line with its damp and mould policy, which requires regular communication, sensitivity, clear advice and effective resolution. Its repairs policy requires it to prioritise repairs where health and safety concerns exist. The landlord has not provided evidence that it assessed whether the property remained safe to occupy.
21. The resident reported that she continued to experience damp and water ingress. The landlord’s records show that key follow-on investigations and core sampling of the ground floor remain outstanding. The landlord has not completed the investigations it identified as necessary in April 2025. This demonstrates prolonged delay and poor coordination. The landlord must now carry out a follow-on inspection, identify any further works required, and produce a schedule of works with timescales.
22. The landlord upheld the complaint at stage 2 and awarded £500. While this recognised some failings, it was not proportionate to the extent of delay, distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. This amount is below the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failing causing significant impact on the resident. The landlord acknowledged some issues, but its offer of compensation was insufficient. It did not address the resident’s prolonged inconvenience, the uncertainty created by its poor communication, or the ongoing damp and mould.
23.  Overall, the landlord did not respond with the urgency, coordination or clarity required under its repairs policy, damp and mould policy or the expectations in our Spotlight report on damp and mould. It failed to promptly investigate the root cause, did not act effectively on professional findings, cancelled or delayed works without explanation, and did not maintain adequate records or communication. Significant works remain outstanding more than 2 years after the resident’s first report. Although the landlord acknowledged some failings and offered some compensation, the redress was insufficient to address the detriment experienced. This amounts to maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Service failure

24. 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 current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
25. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint promptly on 20 August 2024. It called the resident the same day which was good practice. It issued its stage 1 response the same day, within the timescales in its complaints policy and the Code.
26. On 13 December 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to ask about next steps with the complaint, expressing concern about a lack of progress and the impact on her household. The landlord did not acknowledge this contact and did not check whether she wished to escalate her complaint. This was contrary to the Code, which requires landlords to progress a complaint to stage 2 if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1.
27. On 11 February 2025 the resident again told the landlord she wished to take the complaint further. While the landlord attempted to address the resident’s concerns by raising a task for its surveyor, it again did not escalate the complaint.
28. The landlord recorded that the resident escalated the complaint on 15 August 2025 but did not provide records showing the basis for this. The resident then set out her escalation by email on 17 August 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 and 22 August 2025 but referred to an earlier complaint on 24 July 2025 which it did not provide evidence of. This suggested an administrative error and caused some avoidable confusion. It did, however, make a call to the resident on 22 August 2025 and check for vulnerabilities, which was good practice and helped clarify her concerns.
29. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 September 2025, within the Code’s timescales. However, it did not identify or address the resident’s earlier requests for support with escalating her complaint. This was a failing. The landlord did not put this right in its stage 2 response. We have therefore ordered £75 compensation. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance for minor service failure where the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge or address its errors.

Learning

30. This case highlights the importance of having a clear and coordinated diagnostic pathway when responding to reports of damp and mould. Diagnosing the underlying causes of damp and mould can be complex, and the landlord did act on the recommendations of its surveyors and contractors. It tried multiple approaches to address the problem. However, the absence of a structured pathway meant the landlord did not sequence or coordinate these actions effectively, and delayed follow‑up on key recommendations. Had the landlord appointed a single person to manage the works and deal with the repairs, it may have avoided the finding of maladministration. The landlord should ensure it develops a clear process for managing each damp and mould case. This would help ensure timely progression and avoid similar delays in future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s records were inconsistent and, in some cases, incomplete. There were several examples where jobs were raised but not allocated to contractors or cancelled without explanation. The sequence of works relating to drainage, scaffolding and ivy removal was unclear, and the landlord was unable to provide a clear audit trail for key decisions. These gaps made it difficult to understand how the landlord progressed the resident’s reports. Good record keeping is fundamental to effective repairs handling, and the landlord may find it useful to refer to the recommendations set out in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and information management.

Communication

32. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was not effective. The landlord did not always update the resident when it cancelled appointments, or job ownership changed. The resident often had to chase for information, and the landlord did not provide clear explanations or consistent timeframes for the complex works needed. This fell below the standard expected in the landlord’s damp and mould policy, which requires regular communication and sensitive handling. Improved communication would have reduced uncertainty and helped it maintain the resident’s confidence in the repairs process.