London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202429859)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429859

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 June 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about cold and ventilation issues in the property.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2–bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a block. The resident lives in the property with her husband and 3 children all aged under 10. The landlord is aware the resident’s husband has asthma and the 2 younger children have sickle cell.
In February 2022 a surveyor working on behalf of the landlord carried out an inspection of the property. They noted the resident had mentioned that existing air brick vents made the bedroom “incredibly cold”. They recommended thermal boarding the external-facing walls within the property that were affected by mould and also that the air brick vents should be changed. The surveyor did not include information about what the vents should be changed to. It appears this was an oversight in their report.
In April 2022 the landlord’s damp contractor, attending to carry out a mould wash of the affected areas, noted the property was structurally in good condition, however, it had 3 exposed walls which made its exterior walls “extremely cold”. In December 2022 the damp contractor noted the resident had asked for the air bricks to be removed particularly the one in her bedroom as it was allowing cold air into the room which was affecting her health. They noted this was a “Category 1 follow up”. Later that month the landlord fitted plastic covers over the vents.
On 6 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that there was still cold air entering the property through the vents. She said she believed the landlord would not put up scaffolding to check the external condition of the vents. She added she had 2 children with sickle cell anaemia and they had to be kept warm to prevent illness. She also said how difficult it was to heat the property and the amount of money she was wasting on heating.
Two days later the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the work it had carried out in December 2022 had been completed to a satisfactory standard. It added all properties required adequate ventilation. The resident escalated the complaint the same day saying she had concerns about the amount of cold air entering the bedroom. She stressed that a surveyor had said the external brickwork might be damaged, which could be contributing to the cold.
Some 4 months later, in mid-June 2023, the landlord noted that the installation of thermal boarding should be booked in for the property. On 16 September 2024, after chasing the works, the resident again escalated the complaint.
On 18 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The main points were:
1. it would inspect the property on 24 October 2024, to determine any further options and discuss these with the resident. It would raise appropriate works and the maintenance supervisor would be her point of contact.
2. it would review thermal boarding as part of that inspection.
3. it apologised that it had taken so long for it to review the complaint. It said this was due to the maintenance supervisor visiting at a time that it had not agreed with the resident previously, and her not being home at the time.
4. it offered compensation of £980 for the length of time it had taken it to address the complaint and the distress this might have caused. This was made up of £40 for time and effort; £100 for the delay in its complaint handling at stage 2; £420 for inconvenience; and £420 for the delay in carrying out repairs (£20 x 21 months).
The following month, the resident told the landlord that water sometimes came into the flat from the airbrick vents. She said her daughter had been hospitalized due to “chest crises” caused by the cold.
On 29 May 2025 there was an inspection of the property by an expert witness (a chartered surveyor) in relation to a potential disrepair claim. This found that the airbricks and vents were defective and allowed draughts into the property. They noted there was “too much airflow” coming through the vents causing draughts. They noted remedial work was required which was to supply and fit smaller vent covers with adjustable louvres.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident mentions that the health of her family has been affected by the cold in the property. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim. However we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident and her family might have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the way it responded to her concerns about their health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cold and ventilation issues in the property

The landlord is responsible for maintaining, among other things, the structure and exterior of the property including the walls. This reflects its obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord’s repair policy in place from 2023 notes that the landlord is responsible for airbricks and vents.
The repair policy also says that, when the property is let, it will meet its void standard. Once a property is let, it will undertake repairs to items it is responsible for when they have become defective to the point that:  
1. there is a health and safety issue that presents a risk of harm
2. non-repair would cause further damage to the property.
The repair policy says that the landlord aims to complete day-to-day repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
Cold is a hazard that falls within the scope of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS and, where a potential hazard is identified, conduct inspections and monitoring of the property. A property could be regarded as unfit for human habitation by reason of excess cold under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The evidence provided by the landlord showed that the resident first raised the issue of a cold temperature within the property during a survey relating to mould in early 2022. The surveyor made recommendations – these included changing the air vents. They also recommended thermal boarding. While this was noted as a measure to combat mould, it is reasonable to presume that this was also in relation to the temperature of the property because the landlord included this matter when considering the resident’s complaint about the cold temperature within the property.
There was poor communication by the landlord relating to these matters. It failed to set out clear expectations and timescales for the works that arose from the surveyor’s report in February 2022. There is no evidence the landlord took into account the vulnerabilities of the household members which meant they were more likely to be affected by the cold temperatures in the property than others might have been.
The contractor expressed concerns in April 2022 about the “extremely cold” exterior walls in the property. They further raised fears in December 2022 that there was a category 1 hazard in the property. That appears to have prompted the landlord to take action and it fitted plastic covers over the vents. That does not appear to be in line with the surveyor’s recommendations earlier that year that suggested the vents be changed. The 10-month delay in taking that action was not appropriate as the resident had raised a repair issue that presented a potential risk of harm to members of the household. The landlord should have followed up and acted on the surveyor’s recommendations promptly.
When the resident told the landlord this action had not resolved the cold, it told her in its stage 1 complaint response that the work had been carried out to a satisfactory standard. While that might be the case, given the resident was telling the landlord that the action it had taken had not resolved the matter, it should have investigated further. There is no evidence of any further action by the landlord relating to the vents until it raised a works order on 27 June 2024 to carry out work to install mesh behind the vent to try to achieve an even spread of air flow. The landlord’s records note it cancelled this work as it could not gain access on 3 occasions. The repair log notes only one occasion of no access. It also suggests this work was completed on 16 September 2024. The lack of accurate records in this case was not helpful to establish what repairs had been undertaken.
Further, in October 2024 the landlord noted it was unclear whether the work relating to the thermal boarding had been completed or not. Again, the landlord should keep accurate records to allow it to monitor outstanding works. Such records would help to ensure the landlord fulfils its repair obligations. An order has been made for the landlord to review what went wrong in this case and why there was such a delay in taking action following the surveyor’s recommendations in February 2022. The landlord should write to the resident and us with its findings.
Following the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord decided in late December 2024 that it would not install thermal boarding at the property. The surveyor remarked that he could not see how thermal boarding would help because “the mould was found on the internal walls, not the external walls”. It appears that this decision was made in relation to the mould at the property, not the cold.
We have therefore made an order for the landlord to consider if thermal boarding would be appropriate to mitigate the cold in the bedrooms of the property. It should write to the resident and us with the outcome of that decision. If the landlord decides that it is not appropriate, it should give an explanation for that decision. If it decides to install thermal boarding, it should give the timescales for that work which should be completed before the end of October 2025 (before winter).
We have also made an order for the landlord to fit smaller vent covers to the air brick vents with adjustable louvres in line with the surveyor’s recent report. The landlord should also inspect the property to assure itself that there is no structural damage to the air brick vents externally. It should send the outcome of that inspection to the resident and us. If there is such damage, it should set out the timescales for the appropriate repairs. This work should again be completed before the end of October 2025.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it took no action in relation to the thermal boarding and offered the resident compensation of £840 for the inconvenience and distress caused by this delay. This covered the 21 month period from February 2022 to October 2024.
Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is our role to consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s or a household member’s mental or physical health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on them.
Additional compensation is appropriate for the landlord’s delay in taking action relating to the vents and also for failing to investigate further when the resident told it the problem remained. The evidence suggests the issue of the cold in the bedrooms remains unresolved to date. In line with our remedies guidance, we have made an order for additional compensation of £850 for the impact of these failings. This sum takes into account the vulnerabilities of the household members which meant the outstanding repairs, as well as the landlord’s handling of them, would have had a more severe effect on them compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord responded within its timescales at stage 1. The resident immediately raised concerns about that response in a comprehensive email to the landlord. The Code in place at that time (from 1 April 2022) said that ‘if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies’. Grounds for exclusion would be if the resident had taken legal action since bringing the complaint to the landlord.
In line with the Code, the landlord should have promptly escalated the complaint to stage 2. It did not do so. This meant the resident had to take the time and trouble to re-escalate the complaint in September 2024. Overall, the landlord took some 20 months to issue the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not appropriate.
In her complaint the resident raised concerns about her high energy costs. The landlord did not address this matter. The resident had brought up this issue, so she had a right to expect the landlord to respond to it. By not investigating this concern, the landlord missed a chance to identify and fix issues at an earlier stage. We have ordered the landlord to consider any increased energy consumption and to pay compensation.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £140 for its poor complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance, a further £60 is appropriate for the frustration caused by its failure to address her concerns about her increased energy costs.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s concerns about cold and ventilation issues in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. In doing so the landlord must have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
2. pay the resident the sum of £980 offered in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not done so already.
3. pay the resident additional compensation of £850 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its mishandling of her concerns about cold and ventilation issues in the property.
4. pay the resident additional compensation of £60 for the frustration caused by its poor complaint handling. These sums must be paid direct to the resident and not offset against arrears, where they exist.
5. review what went wrong in this case and why there was such a delay in taking action following the surveyor’s recommendations in February 2022. The landlord must write to the resident and us with its findings.
6. consider if thermal boarding would be appropriate to mitigate the cold in the bedrooms of the property. It must write to the resident and us with the outcome of that decision. If the landlord decides that it is not appropriate, it must give an explanation for that decision. If it decides to install thermal boarding, it must give the timescales to start that work in order for it to be completed before the end of October 2025 (before winter).
7. fit smaller vent covers to the air brick vents with adjustable louvres in line with the surveyor’s recent report. The landlord must also inspect the property to assure itself that there is no structural damage to the air brick vents externally. It must send the outcome of that inspection to the resident and us. If there is such damage, it must set out the timescales for the appropriate repairs. This work must again be commenced and completed before the end of October 2025.
Within 4 weeks of the resident submitting evidence of increased energy costs, the landlord must consider whether it will make any contribution. It must write to the resident and us with the outcome of its review. If the resident does not submitted information, then the landlord is not required to complete a review.

Recommendations

The landlord may wish to consider if the resident’s home is the only property affected by the issue or whether this is a wider issue across the building. This may allow it to consider a programme of works which may offer value for money, as opposed to ad hoc works/repairs.