Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202425066)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425066

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

17 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak, causing damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy at the property which is a 2 bedroom, 5th floor flat. She lives with her adult son, who has health issues. The landlord leases the building from a managing agent. The managing agent is responsible for the maintenance of the building structure, including the roof.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 2 January 2024 that there was a leak coming into her bathroom from the roof. She made a complaint on 24 May 2024 and said there had been no action since a roofer had visited in March 2024. She said the leak had got worse and there was mould in the property.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 28 May 2024. It apologised that the roofer had not reattended. It said it would treat the mould once the repair had been done.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint as the matter had not been resolved. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 9 July 2024. It identified that it was not responsible for the roof and the managing agent was. It told the managing agent about the required repair. It offered compensation for its failures.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to us on 23 September 2024 as the repair had not been carried out. She subsequently told us in March 2025 that it was still outstanding. She felt her son’s health had been affected by damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. From the landlord’s repairs logs, we have seen that the resident reported a leak into her bathroom in late 2021, March 2022 and September 2022. She did not raise any further concerns of a leak into the bathroom until her report to the landlord on 2 January 2024. Our Scheme says we may not consider issues which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within 12 months of them occurring. We have not been provided with evidence that the resident raised these issues as a complaint within this timeframe. Nor have we seen evidence that the resident could not have raised their complaint within 12 months. Therefore, these reports will not be considered within this investigation. Our investigation will focus on the events from 2 January 2024 onwards. 
  2. The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the situation had on her son’s health. We are unable to draw conclusions relating to impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are matters for a court to decide. A court can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her son.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak, causing damp and mould

  1. Following the resident’s report of a leak on 2 January 2024, the landlord raised a repair to be actioned within 20 working days. This was in line with the 20 day response timeframe stated in its damp and mould policy following such a report. However, it took until 6 March 2024, around 2 months, for a roofer to investigate.
  2. We have not seen any evidence to explain why this initial investigation was delayed. In addition, there was no evidence that the landlord kept the resident up-to-date about the timeframe of the inspection during this period. This was contrary to its damp and mould policy, which says that resident’s should be kept informed of the progress of repairs.
  3. It is not clear if any work was carried out by the roofer when it attended, however, they said they would re–visit the property in 7 days. The roofer did not re-attend as advised. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 9 April 2024. The landlord referred the matter to its damp and mould team and asked it to arrange follow on works. We have not been provided with evidence of any works being arranged, or that the landlord kept the resident informed of a likely timeframe to compete any works. This was another failing by the landlord to adhere to the process set out in its damp and mould policy.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 24 May 2024. She said that the leak had got worse and there was mould in the property. The next working day, the landlord asked the roofer to re-inspect the property as a matter of urgency.
  5. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 28 May 2024. It said as follows:
    1. It apologised that the roofer had not re–inspected the property. It had asked them to re-attend.
    2. After the roof was repaired, the landlord would carry out damp and mould treatment.
    3. It acknowledged that it had not provided the level of service it aimed to. It confirmed it should have managed the repair more effectively and it should have been completed sooner.
    4. It would consider compensation once the repair had been completed.
  6. The response shows that although the landlord acknowledged  the re-inspection had not taken place, it did not provide an explanation for this failure. It also did not explain the reason the roofer needed to re–attend or what the findings had been from the first inspection. This lack of transparency caused frustration to the resident.
  7. The evidence shows the landlord identified failures in its handling of the repair but did not explain the steps it would take to prevent these from happening again in the future. This was a missed opportunity to take learning from its identified failures. It did not offer any compensation or other redress to put things right for its failures as part of its response.
  8. The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. It was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales. The HHSRS states damp and mould in a property could be a hazard.
  9. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
  10. By the time of the stage 1 response, the landlord had been aware of the unresolved leak for almost 5 months. It was also aware that the resident’s son had health issues. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will consider household vulnerabilities when responding to such reports. We have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord considered the vulnerabilities present. Nor that it tried to reduce the impact of the damp and mould in the meantime, such as by supplying a dehumidifier or carrying out interim mould washes. This was a missed opportunity to improve the situation for the resident, whilst the root cause was still to be tackled.
  11. The resident escalated the complaint on 14 June 2024 as the repair had not been done. The landlord told her on 2 July 2024 that it had contacted the roofer. It provided contact details for the roofer should the resident want to contact them about the appointment. Although this appeared to be well intentioned, the responsibility to manage the landlord’s contractors was not the resident’s responsibility. By this point, over a month had passed since the stage 1 response with the resident not having been given any updates on the repair, other than when she chased the matter. This was evidence of poor communication and management of the repairs by the landlord.
  12. The landlord contacted the managing agent of the block on 4 July 2024. It asked for clarification as to whether the landlord of the managing agent was responsible for the roof.
  13. The landlord subsequently responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 9 July 2024. It said as follows:
    1. It apologised for its poor communication and lack of action. It also apologised that the roofer had not re-attended the property.
    2. It had identified a “serious service failure” on its behalf, as the management company were responsible for the roof repairs, not itself. It acknowledged it should have identified this during its stage 1 investigation. It had since asked the management company to arrange the roof repair.
    3. It acknowledged the matter had been “frustrating and exhausting” for the resident and that her living conditions had been affected. It had learnt lessons and had fed these back to senior managers. It would undertake training and update procedures to avoid such “misinformation” in the future.
    4. It offered a total of £360 compensation, made up as follows:
      1. £280 for the inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise the affect due to vulnerabilities.
      2. £60 for the resident’s time and effort.
      3. £20 for the delay in the stage 2 response.
  14. The landlord’s failure to correctly identify that the management company was responsible for the roof repair at any point between the initial report on 2 January 2024 and the stage 2 response in July 2024, led to a unnecessary delay of around 6 months. During this time, the resident and her son were living in the property with damp and mould present. Despite being aware of this and the household vulnerabilities, the landlord failed to take steps to improve the living conditions during this time.
  15. By the time of the stage 2 response and 6 months on from the resident’s original report, the roofer had not re-attended the property. This was despite the landlord asking it to do so on a number of occasions. We have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord considered other options such as instructing a different contractor during the period it thought it was responsible for the repair. This was indicative of the landlord’s general lack of urgency to complete the repair and lack of focus to resolve the matter for the resident. Following its identification that the management company was responsible the landlord it to carry out the repair. We have not seen any evidence that it asked for this to be prioritised given the delay caused by its failure.
  16. The landlord’s offer of £360 compensation included £20 for self–identified complaint handling failures. The evidence shows the landlord sent its stage 2 response 19 working days after the resident’s escalation request. Although within the timeframe provided by its complaints policy, the landlord noted it had taken too long to acknowledge the escalation request. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation at this level for what was a minor service failure.
  17. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the  offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
  18. The total amount of compensation offered by the landlord was within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident. Although its offer went some way to put things right, it was not sufficient for the following reasons:
    1. It did not carry out interim work to lessen the impact of the mould.
    2. It failed to demonstrate consideration of the household vulnerabilities.
    3. It failed to correctly identify its repair responsibility.
    4. The roof leak was not resolved by March 2025, 14 months after the initial report.
    5. It failed to provide a timeframe within which it would expect the management company to take action. It did not explain how it would ensure the repair was conducted in a timely manner by the managing agent, or the options it had open to it should the management company fail to carry out the repair in a reasonable time.
  19. The failures in this case amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the effect of the failures on the resident, we have ordered additional compensation of £440. This brings the total compensation for the repair issue to £800. This is in line with the range recommended in our remedies guidance where there were failures which had a significant physical or emotional impact on a resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak, causing damp and mould.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
    1. Pay £800 compensation to the resident to acknowledge the effect of the landlord’s failures. This amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £360 compensation. The landlord can deduct this amount if it can provide evidence this has already been paid.
    2. Carry out a survey of the property, identify interim measures to manage damp and mould prior to the roof works and to identify what works it will commit to undertake to rectify internal damage caused by the leak.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is to:
    1. Confirm with the management company its plan and timeframe to carry out the roof repair.
    2. Within a further 2 weeks of receiving the plan from the management company, the landlord should set out the steps it will take should the management company fail to complete the repair in line with its stated plan. This should include what action the landlord will take to ensure the repair is completed and how it will improve the household conditions in the interim.