London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202537391)

Decision
Case ID	202537391
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	31 March 2026

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about damp and mould, an outstanding bedroom wall plaster repair, and a leaking stack pipe. She also asked the landlord if it would replace her windows because she believed they were rotten.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A leaking stack pipe
2. Damp and mould
3. Bedroom wall plaster repairs
4. The resident’s request for new windows
We have investigated the landlord’s complaint handling

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of a leaking stack pipe
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bedroom wall plaster repairs
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for new windows is outside our jurisdiction
5. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a leaking stack pipe

The landlord inspected the property and raised repairs to fix a leaking stack pipe. However, it took an unreasonable amount of time to complete the repair. The compensation it offered was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

The landlord inspected the property, cleaned mould from the walls, and identified repairs that caused damp. However, it did not complete these repairs in line with its policies, or offer the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused her.

The landlord’s handling of the bedroom wall plaster repairs

The landlord carried out several inspections of the property and bedroom wall. However, it delayed completing the repair and the compensation it offered for this was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for new windows

The resident’s request for new windows has not completed the landlord’s complaint procedure.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the timescales in its complaint policy. However, it did not respond to her stage 2 request for new windows or record this as a new stage 1 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 28 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of a leaking stack pipe £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of bedroom wall plaster repairs £50 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it had already paid	No later than 28 April 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date. Someone suitably qualified must complete the 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 property for signs of damp and mould. It must report back to us and the resident the outcomes of its inspection. If there is any damp and mould in the property the landlord must include an action plan about how it will address this.	No later than 28 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord to contact the resident to advise whether it will redecorate her bedroom wall, or offer decorating vouchers, as an exceptional circumstance, in line with its compensation and repairs policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 March 2025	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint about outstanding plasterwork, repairs, and damp and mould. She asked whether the landlord planned to replace the windows. She said she could not stay in the property because the damp affected her breathing and damaged her belongings. She said a drain and pipes at the back of the property were leaking which affected a nearby wall.
14 March 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
20 March 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had booked repairs to the bedroom wall, stack pipe, and raised a job for its specialist damp and mould team to inspect the property. It told the resident she should report any new window repairs. It offered her £120 as compensation for any inconvenience its repair delays caused.
6 October 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said there was a hole in her bedroom wall, damp in several rooms, and mould around the windows which it should replace. She said the damp levels in the property were twice as high as they should be and affected her health. She asked the landlord to check the kitchen for damp and mould. She also said it should carry out a full property inspection, prepare a written report about structural and damp issues, and provide a repair timetable.
9 October 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint
20 October 2025	The landlord sent the resident its final complaint response. It said it inspected the property, carried out clean and shield treatments, and found no damp, mould, or repairs issues on 24 April 2025. It said it reinspected the property on 16 October 2025, carried out another clean and shield treatment, and gave the resident advice on managing moisture. It confirmed its inspection report recommended repairs which it had booked for November 2025. The landlord said it would not remove the kitchen units because its inspection report did not recommend this. It said the resident had switched off the extractor fan, which she should use to help reduce moisture. It accepted its service had not met its standards and it should have managed repairs better and sooner. It upheld the complaint, said it would train staff, and offered the resident an additional £50 for the delay in repairing the bedroom wall and £50 for the time and effort she spent resolving the complaint, bringing its total compensation offer to £220. The landlord said it would monitor the outstanding repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord should complete damp and mould repairs, decorate her bedroom, and increase its compensation offer.

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 a leaking stack pipe
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on 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 can deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

The resident told us there had been a leak on an external stack pipe since 2022. However, she did not complain to the landlord about this until March 2025. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. We do not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to March 2024.
The landlord inspected the property on 18 August 2024. It found a leak from a stack pipe was causing damp on an inner bedroom wall. It recommended a CCTV survey to find the cause of the leak. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days and complicated routine repairs that require specialist equipment within 40 working days. The landlord returned to survey the stack pipe on 29 January 2025 which was 74 working days later than its repairs policy target.
The landlord could not complete the CCTV survey on 29 January 2025 because there was no access point for the camera. However, it found a leak and recommended renewing the stack pipe. The landlord did not raise this work, and the resident reported the leak again on 11 March 2025. The delay caused her unnecessary time and trouble pursuing the repair and reporting the leaking pipe and damp in her stage 1 complaint.
The landlord’s repair records show it requested the stack pipe repair on 11, 14, and 16 March 2025, before it raised a works order on 19 March 2025 for works on 1 April 2025.
The landlord spoke to the resident about the repair on 31 March 2025 and rebooked it for 24 April 2025. It moved the repair again on 24 April 2025 to 22 May 2025. It is unclear why it moved the appointments as its records did not explain the changes.
The landlord surveyed the drain and stack pipe on 8 May 2025 and confirmed there was no damage. It raised works to fix the leak and completed the repair on 22 May 2025. This was 50 working days after the resident reported the leaking pipe again in March 2025.
The landlord addressed how it handled the leaking stack pipe repair in its complaint responses. It said it should have handled the repairs sooner and more effectively and upheld the complaint. When a landlord admits failings we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this we takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the resident £120 in compensation for the inconvenience its repair delays caused her. It summarised how it had handled the repair from January 2025 and confirmed that it had fixed the leak in its final response. The landlord accepted there were repair delays but did not acknowledge it took more than a year to repair the leak, or the impact this had on the resident. The landlord made an offer of compensation this was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation Overall, we found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the stack pipe repair.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £80 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience its handling of the stack pipe repair caused the resident. This award is in line with our remedies guidance in recognition that the landlord’s compensation offer was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience this caused her. Our order brings the total compensation award to £200.
The landlord and the resident have confirmed the landlord has fixed the leak.

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

In December 2023 the resident made an earlier complaint about how the landlord handled her reports of damp and mould. The landlord sent its final response on 22 February 2024. We previously investigated how it handled damp and mould in the property between December 2022 and September 2024. This included references to a damp wall and repointing work. We issued our determination on 3 December 2024 under complaint reference 202309420. This report investigates the landlord’s handling of damp and mould from September 2024. Any events referred to before then are for context only.
The resident reported mould in several rooms and told the landlord she believed the property was uninhabitable on 6 and 11 March 2025. The landlord raised a works order for its specialist damp and mould team to inspect. Its damp and mould policy says the landlord is responsible for identifying, investigating, and resolving damp and mould as quickly and effectively as possible, although it does not set a specific time scale. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had asked its damp contractor to arrange an appointment with the resident.
The landlord completed a clean and shield treatment on 28 March 2025. It did this within 13 working days which met the landlord’s 20-working day target for routine repairs. Its inspection report confirmed it used metering equipment to assess the damp, in line with its damp and mould policy. It did not include the findings in its report but noted the resident believed there might be mould behind the kitchen units.
On 24 April 2025, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and took photographs. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to confirm it found no damp or mould, as it had recently cleared this. It did not recommend any further repairs.
On 1 July 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident to say it had closed her damp and mould case because it had cleaned her property. She replied on the same day to report rising damp which she said affected her health and damaged her belongings. The landlord gave her advice about managing moisture in line with its damp and mould policy on the same day and again on 30 July 2025. It also said it would investigate her further reports of damp and mould and update her. It did not do so which caused her further time and trouble asking the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 in October 2025.
On 9 October 2025, the landlord acknowledged it had not inspected the property since April 2025 and that mould might be present. It spoke to the resident the next day and she repeated she believed there was rising damp, mould behind the kitchen units, and that the landlord should provide a dehumidifier. The landlord carried out another clean and shield treatment on 16 October 2025 and gave the resident more advice about moisture management. It found the moisture readings were not high and concluded the mould was due to outstanding plaster, tiling, and repointing repairs, and the inconsistent use of an extractor fan.
The landlord addressed its handling of damp and mould in its final complaint response. It summarised the findings from its April and October 2025 inspections and confirmed it had booked the outstanding repairs for November 2025. It said its inspection report showed the property was inhabitable and reminded the resident to use her extractor fan. It acknowledged its service did not meet its standards and upheld the complaint.
The landlord did not complete the repairs its previous healthy homes inspection reports said contributed to damp and mould. Instead, it treated the symptoms and gave the resident advice. It delayed repairing a leaking stack pipe until May 2025 and repointing the external brickwork despite finding these issues caused internal damp.
The landlord said the property was inhabitable but we have not seen records showing how it assessed this. We have also not seen how the landlord considered the resident’s reported concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her health. The landlord missed the chance to address the resident’s reports of rising damp and mould behind the kitchen units to manage her expectations. However, it acknowledged it had provided a poor service but despite this it did not offer the resident proportionate compensation to put things right. Overall, we found service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £100 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience its handling of damp and mould had on her. This award is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has failed to fully acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right.
Since her complaint completed the complaint procedure in October 2025 the resident has reported further concerns about damp and mould to the landlord. We have ordered it to inspect the property and provide a report and a timetable for any repairs it identifies.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of bedroom plasterwork repairs
Finding	Maladministration

In December 2023, the resident made an earlier complaint about how the landlord handled bedroom plasterwork repairs. We investigated the landlord’s handling of that issue, covering events between December 2022 and September 2024, in our determination issued on 3 December 2024 under complaint reference 202309420. This report looks at how the landlord handled the bedroom plaster repairs from September 2024 onwards. Any events we have included before that date are for context only.
The resident reported the landlord had not repaired her bedroom wall on 6 and 11 March 2025 and in her stage 1 complaint on 13 March 2025. This was after the landlord had agreed to complete the work in an earlier stage 2 complaint response. The landlord should have kept its commitment to repair the wall to resolve her complaint. Its failure to do so caused the resident time and trouble pursuing the repair.
The landlord sent the resident a text message on 13 March 2025 confirming it had brought the bedroom wall repair forward from 28 April 2025 to 25 March 2025. This met its 20-working day target time for a routine repair. It is unclear when it had originally booked the repair for 28 April 2025.
The landlord inspected the property on 25 March 2025. The operative recommended a supervisor’s inspection, which took place on 7 April 2025. The supervisor found the work would take more than 2 days. The landlord arranged the supervisor’s visit within a reasonable timescale but its records do not show any further outcomes from that visit.
On 16 April 2025, the landlord raised a works order for a surveyor to inspect the property. The surveyor visited on 24 April 2025 and took photographs of the outstanding bedroom plaster repair. However, the landlord did not comment on the condition of the plaster to the resident or tell her when it would carry out the repair to manage her expectations.
On 13 May 2025, the landlord sent works order for the plaster repairs to its contractor but it did not book an appointment. The landlord’s delay and its lack of communication about the repair was unreasonable, given it had identified a link between the leaking stack pipe, damp, and the damaged bedroom wall plaster. The delay caused the resident further time, trouble, and inconvenience pursuing the outstanding repair in June and July 2025, and when she escalated her complaint to stage 2 in October 2025.
The landlord addressed how it had handled the bedroom wall repair in its final complaint response. It summarised its handling of this between March 2025 and October 2025. It acknowledged it should have handled repairs sooner and more effectively. It said it had learnt from the complaint and it would provide staff training, and it upheld the complaint. However, it did not explain what learning it had taken from the case.
The landlord confirmed it had booked the repair for 5 November 2025, to put things right. It also offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience its delays caused and £50 for the time and effort she spent pursuing the complaint, totalling £100. However, considering the unreasonable amount of time taken for the landlord to complete the repair its compensation was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the bedroom plasterwork repair.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience its delayed handling of the repair caused her. This award is in line with our remedies guidance. It recognises the landlord attempted to put things right but its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings we have identified. Our order brings the total compensation to £200.
The landlord completed the repair in December 2025, reinspected the property in January 2026, and confirmed there were no further concerns. The resident has since told us the landlord has not redecorated. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may redecorate or offer decorating vouchers, in exceptional circumstances. We have recommended the landlord to contact the resident about this.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for new windows
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident asked the landlord if it planned to install new windows in her property in her March 2025 stage 1 complaint. The landlord said this would not form part of its stage 1 response because she had not complained about windows in the previous 12 months.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property in April 2025 and wrote to her to say it would let her know if it would replace her windows in a planned renewal programme. However, it did not do so. The resident repeated her request for new windows in her stage 2 complaint.
The landlord did not address the resident’s request for new windows in its final complaint response or log a new stage 1 complaint about the issue. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. As the resident’s complaint has not completed the landlord’s complaint procedure this complaint is outside our jurisdiction. However, we have considered the landlord’s complaint handling in relation to this below.
Since her complaint completed the complaint procedure the resident reported new concerns about damp and rotten windows. She can ask the landlord to escalate her complaint and if she is unhappy with its final response she can ask us to investigate.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will also respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says it will investigate all elements of a complaint, or register new issues raised after stage 1 as a new complaint. The landlord’s response timescales and its definition of a complaint are consistent with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints in line with its complaint policy target. It responded to her stage 1 complaint within 5 working days in line with its complaint policy. It responded to her stage 2 complaint within 10 working days in line with its policy. It confirmed it had upheld the resident’s complaints, offered her compensation, and said it had learnt from the complaint.
The landlord did not address the resident’s request forewords or record this as a new complaint in line with the Code. However, it said it had inspected the windows and confirmed they did not require replacement 11 working days after her original complaint completed the complaint procedure.
The landlord’s complaint handling failing did not affect the overall outcome for the resident. However, its delayed response to her window enquiries caused her time and trouble. Overall, we found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance to recognise the inconvenience the landlord’s delay caused her.

Learning

The landlord should review its complaint handling in this case to ensure it recognises, logs, and processes complaints. It should consider how it manages situations where a resident raises additional issues during an ongoing complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should learn from this complaint by ensuring it maintains complete and accurate records so it can meet its repair obligations and evidence it has done so.

Communication

The landlord provided advice in its stage 2 complaint response confirming it had added alerts to its housing database. This will ensure staff are aware of the resident’s communication and support needs to help it manage repairs more effectively.