London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202440360)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440360

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

4 July 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 sent information to the Ombudsman, which we have 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:
   1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. Request for replacement windows in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom, ground floor, end of terrace flat that the landlord which is a housing association owns and manages. The landlord let the property to the resident under an assured tenancy agreement in 2003. The landlord records that the resident is vulnerable and has health conditions which affect his breathing.
4. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 26 September 2024 about damp and mould in the property. He said that this had been present for 21 years and it had affected his health and damaged the wallpaper. He said that the landlord should survey the property, treat the mould, and replace the single-glazed windows.
5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint, and it replied to the resident on 27 September 2024. It apologised for any trouble the matters may have caused. It said that it had booked window repairs to take place on 15 October 2024 and damp proofing works which it would complete before 22 October 2024.
6. The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 21 October 2024. He said that the landlord could not resolve the condition of the windows with a carpentry repair. This was because they were in a poor condition due to repairs it had previously completed. The resident further explained that the surveyor had inspected the windows and told him that they needed replacement as a priority. The property had poor thermal efficiency, and he struggled to heat the home which the single–glazed windows contributed to. The cold condition of the property affected the resident and his partner’s health conditions. A contractor had recently repaired damp and mould in the kitchen, but condensation still dripped from the windows and had damaged the wallpapering. He asked the landlord to advise when it would replace the windows and repair the damaged wallpaper.
7. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 21 October 2024, and it sent a final response to the resident on 25 October 2024. It summarised the damp and mould inspections and repairs it had completed. It also said:
   1. It had recommended window replacement to take place under a planned improvement programme in 2025/26, subject to further validation.
   2. It would see if it could complete the works sooner considering the resident’s health concerns.
   3. The condition of the wallpaper was the resident’s responsibility.
   4. It did not uphold the complaint.
8. The resident has asked the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint. He has explained that, to put the matter right, the landlord should replace the single–glazed windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his, and his partner’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts can give evidence. The Ombudsman cannot decide on causation based on a review of the housing file. While the Ombudsman can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim he may wish to seek independent legal advice.
10. In the resident’s complaint he referred to damp and mould and window repairs going back 21 years. The Ombudsman has not investigated any historical incidents, as they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. This assessment looks at the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint the resident made in September 2024.

Damp and mould

11. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It must also complete repairs within a reasonable time. The landlord also has a responsibility under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure the property was fit for human habitation. This meant that it was free from a prescribed hazard (s.10), which under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) includes excessive cold and damp and mould.
12. The landlord has supplied the Ombudsman with a full record of the repairs it has raised and completed at the resident’s property since 2005. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident reported damp and mould concerns prior to sending his stage 1 complaint on 26 September 2024.
13. The landlord inspected the property to find the cause of any damp and mould in keeping with its HHSRS obligations. It completed its ‘healthy homes’ damp and mould assessment within 24 hours of the resident’s complaint. It also prepared a report to record its findings. During the assessment, it provided the resident with advice about how to limit the presence of damp and mould. Additionally, it completed a mould wash and a mould treatment. These actions were positive and in keeping with its damp and mould policy. This says it will take responsibility for identifying, investigating, and resolving damp and mould as quickly and effectively as it can. Also, that it will ensure residents have access to detailed advice and guidance on managing damp and mould.
14. The landlord concluded that brickwork repairs on the external kitchen wall and the single-glazed window units may have caused damp and mould in the property. However, there is no evidence that it raised works to complete the external brickwork repairs following its inspection. This was a failing. The damp and mould policy says it would raise any remedial works to its maintenance teams within 10 working days of its assessment. We have seen no evidence that the landlord has since raised works orders to complete these repairs. By not repairing the causes of the damp in the property the landlord was likely to have increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
15. The landlord summarised the actions it had taken to investigate the damp and mould in its final complaint response. It also said that internal decorations were the resident’s responsibility. The landlord’s tenancy handbook says residents are responsible for redecorating, painting, and wallpaper, including after condensation. The damage to the wall paper was caused by condensation dripping from the single-glazed windows. Consequently, the landlord’s advice was reasonable under the circumstances.
16. However, it did not arrange or complete the external brickwork repair. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it sufficiently considered the resident’s reported concerns about the impact the condition of the property had on his health. As the landlord did not find any failings, it did not consider the detriment its failings may have caused to the resident, such as by offering compensation in keeping with its compensation policy. This policy says it would offer compensation where it does not follow its policies and procedures, and this has a negative impact on the resident.
17. The resident raised concerns about the impact of the condition of the property on his medical condition in both of his complaints. Our guidance states that housing associations must give “due regard” to certain equality considerations when carrying out their functions and those obligations in the Equality Act 2010. This means they must actively consider how their decisions and actions might affect people with protected characteristics, such as a disability.
18. The landlord recorded that the resident was vulnerable due to a medical condition. However, it is not clear to what extent his medical condition was classified as a disability under the Equality Act 2010. Consequently, it is unclear to what it extent the landlord had considered the resident’s health needs when assessing the damp and mould. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reviewed any supporting medical information it held about his condition to understand how the damp and mould may have affected his vulnerability. Additionally, it should have discussed the resident’s medical needs with him to ensure it had due regard to the Equality Act 2010, and to find out if he needed further support. We have not seen evidence to confirm that it did which was a failing.
19. Consequently, taking all matters into account, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
20. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 as compensation. This is in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionately addressed. We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the property to assess if it requires any further repairs, discuss the resident’s support needs with him, and to apologise to him in writing for its handling of damp and mould in the property.

Window replacement

21. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, this includes the windows and window frames. The resident reported that the windows in the property required replacement due to draughts, the presence of condensation, and repairs that he said the landlord had poorly completed previously.
22. The landlord concluded that the windows were in a satisfactory condition during its ‘healthy homes’ assessment of 26 September 2024. However, it also noted that the single–glazed windows may have contributed to damp and mould in the property, which the resident had reported affected his health. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to reinspect the condition of the windows. Arranging for a specialist assessment of the windows by a qualified surveyor – in response to the resident’s reported health concerns and its damp and mould assessment –was appropriate. However, it should have done so 3 working days sooner in keeping with its 10 working day damp and mould policy time scale.
23. The landlord concluded during its visit on 15 October 2024 that the windows required replacement and it classified these as a priority. The surveyor used the landlord’s component referral form on the same day to refer the windows to its programmed works team for replacement. This was in keeping with its repairs policy which says it will consider completing window replacement works under a planned works programme, upon referral.
24. The landlord looked to replace the windows in the property outside of its usual processes in consideration of the resident’s vulnerability. This was because it recognised that its planned programme typically took 2 years and that the window replacement was subject to further validation. The landlord’s approach was in keeping with its repairs policy which says it could adjust its service standards where a delay would put a vulnerable resident at risk because of their condition. This was positive.
25. The landlord summarised its investigation into the condition of the windows in its final complaint response. It confirmed that it would replace the windows within its 2025/26 planned programme. This was appropriate under the circumstances as its decision had been based upon the qualified assessment of its surveyor.
26. The landlord issued its response to the resident the day after it had sent an internal email which raised concerns about reputational damage if it decided not to complete the repairs considering the resident’s health needs. It is unclear to what extent the landlord considered this prior to sending its final complaint response. However, it said it would investigate whether it could complete these works sooner in consideration of the resident’s vulnerability. It told the resident that it would update him on its decision when this was known. This was reasonable under the circumstances. It was also an opportunity for the landlord to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its housing services.
27. However, shortly after the landlord issued its final complaint response, it concluded that the condition of the windows did not meet its threshold for renewal works outside of its planned programme. We have seen no evidence that, despite raising reputational concerns, the landlord considered the resident’s medical condition when reaching its decision in keeping with its repairs policy and its prior commitment. By reaching this decision the landlord has not put in place a resolution to addresses any impact the single-glazed windows have had on the resident’s health. Consequently, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement windows in the property.
28. We have ordered the landlord to reconsider its decision about the replacement of the single-glazed windows, by taking into account the resident’s medical circumstances. Further, for it to write to him to explain its decision. We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 as compensation. This is in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where, like here, we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionately addressed. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the window repair failings this investigation has found.

The resident’s complaint.

29. There were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord did not correctly date the stage 1 response. Additionally, it:
    1. Did not fully address the resident’s stage 1 complaint such as by not addressing the damaged to wallpaper. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.7 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of this complaint. This says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
    2. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint in line with paragraph 6.9 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
30. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s stage 1 response is lacking in any sincere acknowledgement of the impact the condition of the property may have had on the resident’s health. Consequently, it missed the opportunity to make further enquiries about his health needs in keeping with its vulnerable resident’s policy. This says any contact with a resident could provide an opportunity to identify their needs.
31. In his stage 2 complaint, the resident explained that he struggled to stay warm and heat the property due to the cost. The landlord’s vulnerability policy says it would refer residents to its tenancy sustainment team as well as other services which can help address issues of financial vulnerability. There is no evidence that it did so. Consequently, the landlord missed the opportunity to put in place further support in recognition of the financial vulnerabilities he had reported. Taking all matters into account, we have found service failure.
32. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 as compensation. This level of award is within the range set out in our remedies guidance for instances when, as here, there have been minor complaint handling failings by the landlord which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident but caused him to incur time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
       1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
       2. Request for replacement windows in the property.

Orders

34. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and his request for replacement windows.
    2. Pay the resident £600 in compensation made up as follows:
       1. £300 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience that the landlord’s response to damp and mould may have caused to the resident.
       2. £200 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience that the landlord’s window replacement failing may have caused to the resident.
       3. £100 for time and trouble that the landlord’s complaint handling failures may have caused to the resident.
    3. Inspect the property to assess if it requires any damp and mould repairs. If so, the landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman details of the repairs, together with a timetable for any works within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
    4. Contact the resident to discuss his vulnerability and medical condition and put in place any required support needs.
    5. Reconsider the replacement of the single-glazed windows with consideration to his vulnerability. It should write to the resident to inform him of the outcome and the reasons for its decisions. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its response.
35. The landlord should pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.