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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202403403)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403403

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 March 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports about the condition of the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a ground floor flat owned by the landlord, a housing association. He is partially sighted and has several medical conditions including emphysema. The landlord is aware of his vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident’s doctor wrote to the landlord in September 2023 about damp, mould, and low temperatures within the property and the impact on the resident’s health. The landlord treated this letter as a formal complaint.
  3. The landlord told us that it issued a stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2023. Neither party has provided a copy to this Service. The landlord said the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 in May 2024.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 31 July 2024, stating a surveyor inspected the property in January 2024 and did not identify any immediate repairs. It said it raised a work order in May 2024 to repoint some of the exterior brickwork. It offered the resident £240 compensation for its delay responding to the complaint.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred the complaint to this Service. To resolve the complaint, he wants the landlord to remedy the issues within his property and provide compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the way the landlord handled the issues impacted his health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, his concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. Within the resident’s communication with this Service, he said repairs were outstanding in the property since around 2016. He also described a previous offer of compensation for £12,000 that he alleged the landlord made verbally but never paid. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that he raised a complaint to the landlord about this, completed its internal complaints procedure, or referred the matter to this Service at the time for support in engaging with the landlord. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen.
  3. In this case, we have used our discretion and focused on the period from December 2022 onwards when it is evident from repair records that damp and mould was reported in the property. Reference to historical events is to provide context only.
  4. This Service can only investigate matters which have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. We recognise that after the landlord issued its final complaint response, the resident expressed other concerns to this Service such as the landlord’s handling of pest proofing works and issues with debris behind his kitchen appliances. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord directly and make a separate complaint, if appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out for routine day to day repairs, it aims to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours.
  3. Following a resident’s report of damp and mould within a property, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
  4. Our spotlight report on damp and mould states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Additionally, we expect landlords to ensure there is effective internal communication between teams and departments and to ensure 1 team or individual has overall responsibility for resolving complaints/reports relating to damp and mould, including follow up or aftercare.
  5. The resident’s GP said they wrote to the landlord on 1 December 2020 explaining the resident was at significant risk of life-threatening complications if he continued to suffer from cold and damp. The GP sent a further copy of the letter to the landlord on 6 September 2023 with additional comments prompting it to act. The stamp on this letter demonstrates it received it on 13 September 2023. From the evidence available, it is not clear if the landlord received the letter from December 2020. After checking the repairs history for the property, there were no repair requests made for damp and mould around this period, although contractors dealt with other repairs. The other repairs were not mentioned within the complaint, so they have not been considered in this investigation.
  6. The landlord’s records demonstrate it raised a work order on 13 December 2022 for a damp specialist to inspect the property. It marked this as complete on 27 January 2023. The landlord has not provided the inspection report to this Service or a copy of the resident’s request for repair. However, an internal email references the inspection stating, “…the damp and mould was to kitchen area only and this was because of a leak.” The landlord’s records indicate it completed the associated kitchen works by July 2023 following an asbestos test. This was outside of the 25-day timeframe set out in the landlord’s repair policy.
  7. The landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property following the letter from the GP in September 2023. It also received several contacts from the resident between October and December 2023. The Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident here. It did not evidence that it updated him regularly and it is clear he spent time chasing for action. The communication failings exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on a vulnerable resident. This undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
  8. An inspection by the landlord’s surveyor took place on 18 January 2024. It found the property did not require any immediate repairs. The surveyor made a referral for the landlord to renew the kitchen and bathroom in the property. This was in accordance with its repairs policy which states where age, and wear and tear affect key components, it will replace these through a planned programme of work. A landlord is entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors and its actions here were reasonable in the circumstances. However, we have not seen evidence of the landlord setting out its position to the resident after the inspection. This was inappropriate and a further shortcoming in the landlord’s communication and its overall management of the resident’s expectations.
  9. In February 2024, a representative of the resident contacted the landlord and expressed further concerns about damp, mould, and severe cold within the property. They described that his floors were extremely cold and suspected it was due to issues in the basement below.
  10. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk such as severe cold, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. It must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to grave consequences for everyone involved.
  11. We have seen no evidence that the landlord assessed the temperatures within the property or considered its thermal comfort. Moreover, the lack of a risk assessment and exploring options with the resident indicates a lack of regard for the impact the alleged cold had on his vulnerabilities.
  12. At stage 2, the landlord told the resident that the basement did not form part of his property, and he should not access it under any circumstances. While it was important for the landlord to explain this, this statement lacked empathy and understanding of the resident’s concerns. Additionally, it missed a further opportunity here to investigate reports of severe cold within the property. This was a failing.
  13. On 14 May 2024, the landlord arranged for a damp specialist to complete a follow-up inspection of the property. The report states there was no mould or excessive moisture within the property and the resident had refused an offer of preventative mould treatment. The Ombudsman finds it was reasonable to offer preventative treatment considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. The specialist identified several areas on the rear external walls that required repointing, which the landlord completed on 16 August 2024. In a call with this Service in March 2025, the resident said he remained dissatisfied with the workmanship. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident about this.
  14. While the landlord inspected the property and sought to complete repairs, it did not appropriately consider the impact of the repair delays, its communication, or its failure to evidence investigation of reports of severe cold within the property. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property.
  15. Our remedies guidance, available on our website, suggests it is reasonable to offer compensation where there were failures that adversely impacted a resident. After considering the information available and the circumstances of this case, we find that compensation of £200 is appropriate.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 response should be issued in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The Code defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’ In this case, the landlord considered an expression of dissatisfaction made by the resident’s doctor as a formal complaint.
  3. The landlord treated a letter from the resident’s doctor dated 6 September 2023 as a formal complaint. The landlord’s records state it called the resident on 29 September 2023 to acknowledge the complaint, yet he was unsure of what the complaint was about or who submitted it. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss the letter with the resident much sooner and establish whether he wanted to make a complaint and what he was seeking in resolution. The landlord has not evidenced that it did so. This was a shortcoming.
  4. When responding to a complaint, the Code says a landlord should explain the decision, its reasons, and the remedy offered to put things right. The landlord informed this Service that it issued a stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2023. It did not provide a copy within its submission to this Service. This has prevented us from assessing its initial response to the complaint.
  5. The landlord informed this Service that the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 in May 2024. The escalation request provided is undated. The stage 2 response was issued on 31 July 2024. The complaint handling delay likely compounded the detriment to the resident as he was uncertain how seriously the landlord was taking his concerns. The landlord’s delay in progressing the complaint also prevented him from referring his case to this Service at the earliest opportunity. Nonetheless, it recognised its failures in its complaint handling, apologised, and offered compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised failings, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint response to improve its service provision.
  7. The landlord offered £240 compensation for its complaint handling failures. In the Ombudsman’s view, this sum was proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused due to the repair delays, poor communication, and failure to investigate his reports of the property being severely cold. It must pay the compensation directly to him.
    3. Write to the resident setting out how it intends to investigate the thermal comfort of the property. The landlord must include specific actions with defined timescales.

 

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £240 previously offered for its handling of the complaint if it has not yet done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on this basis.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to discuss his concerns about debris containing mould behind his kitchen appliances and the external repointing.