London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202528037)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about delays completing repairs to address damp and mould resulting from a leak. It is aware that the resident has respiratory health issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord acknowledged delays to carry out repair work. However, it did not fully resolve the issue for over 9 months since the initial report. This meant the redress it offered was not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident.

The complaint

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident raised concerns about the affect of the damp and mould on his health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The evidence shows that the resident had been reporting intermittent leaks from the property above since 2023. However, we have seen no reports of damp and mould until June 2025 prior to raising his complaint in October 2025.
8. Landlords must ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords must consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents to manage their expectations. They should also ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents on actions taken to resolve damp and mould.
9. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of damp and mould on 25 June 2025 was timely. It inspected the issue 2 working days later, within the 20 working day timescale set out in its damp and mould policy. It completed a mould wash and noted ingrained stains to the ceiling from previous leaks. However, this repair record incorrectly stated that it had resolved a leak from the property above, even though it had not inspected that property. This shows it failed to review its earlier repair records.
10. The landlord raised a repair on 23 July 2025 to trace the leak affecting the resident’s bedroom ceiling, but its records do not explain the source of this report. It attended 17 days later than its 20 working day repairs timescale. During the visit, it found it needed access to the property above but could not gain entry. It noted historic access issues at the property above and raised follow‑on work to re‑attend.
11. The landlord made 2 unsuccessful attempts to access the neighbouring property between August and September 2025 to resolve the leak. It should have addressed the recurring access issue by following its property access policy or enforcing the tenancy conditions, but it provided no evidence that it did so. However, it escalated the access problem to its neighbourhood management team only after the resident chased the matter on 11 September 2025. This lack of a proactive approach caused further delays in resolving the matter. This does not demonstrate that it considered the resident’s health or the effect of the ongoing leak on him.
12. On 13 October 2025, the landlord inspected the property above and reported finding no leak. This was 62 days later than its published response timescale of 20 working days. Its repair records do not show whether it took any further action to address the resident’s concerns. Given the longstanding issue, it should have accessed both properties to fully investigate.
13. The resident reported again on 14 November 2025 that the leak was ongoing and he was unable to sleep in his bedroom. There is no evidence the landlord carried out a further investigation. Its failure to identify the source of the leak or complete a lasting repair likely affected the resident’s enjoyment of his home. It again failed to demonstrate that it considered his health condition.
14. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it explained how the resident could submit a claim to its liability insurer. This was appropriate given his reports that damp and mould had damaged his personal belongings.
15. The landlord failed to monitor the issue throughout this case in line with its damp and mould policy. It did not arrange necessary follow-on work required to remedy the conditions in the resident’s property as set out in its complaint responses. The resident has told us that the repair work remains outstanding.
16. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing this, we assess whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
17. The landlord also failed to maintain effective communication with the resident throughout this case. It did not provide regular updates, and he had to spend time chasing it for information and progress. These failings likely worsened the situation and increased the impact on him.
18. The landlord offered the resident £390 compensation to acknowledge its failings up to 25 November 2025. However, after issuing its final response, it did not complete the repair work within a reasonable timeframe. Nine months after the resident’s original report, he has told us the repair work remains outstanding, showing poor oversight and ineffective repair monitoring. As a result, we found its compensation offer was not proportionate to the delays and detriment the resident experienced. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered additional compensation of £310 and specific actions to resolve the outstanding repairs, consistent with our principles of fairness and putting things right.
19. We have notified the landlord that the resident’s recent correspondence with us indicates there could be a hazard in the property which may fall under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It is for the landlord to consider this and respond to the resident directly, in line with its statutory obligations.

20. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
21. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at both stages in line with the timescales published in its policy.
22. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it acknowledged service shortcomings, apologised, offered compensation, and outlined planned actions. However, it did not provide timescales for all of them which it should consider in its future complaint handling. Overall, its approach broadly aligned with its complaint policy and the Code.

Learning

23. It is important for landlords to see complaints as opportunities to recover repair failings. Commitments made in the complaint process need to be completed, otherwise it compounds the breakdown of trust. When outlining commitments within complaint responses, landlords must ensure a defined scope of works is provided with expected start dates. This offers reassurance to residents and provides greater detail and realistic timeframes to support transparency and help rebuild trust in the landlord–resident relationship. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. Good record keeping allows landlords to know and understand is assets generally, and what inspections have uncovered. It ensures that repairs and works are managed effectively without the need for repeat reports or unreasonable delays. In this case, there were times the landlord was unaware of repairs and inspections, perhaps due to record keeping. A clear guide or strategy for repairs teams and operatives is likely to ensure contractors know what to record and that landlords can access it. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

25. The landlord failed to consistently communicate about delays throughout the repairs process. Effective communication is vital as poor communication leaves residents uninformed leading to frustration. Effective communication ensures landlords manage expectations, even when delays occur, and how they can mitigate the impact of these. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.