London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202421680)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421680

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 September 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:

the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould.
the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured fixed term tenancy which began in March 2023. The landlord is a housing association. He lives in a 2 bed, first floor flat with his pregnant wife. The property is part of a 4-floor block of flats. The landlord is not aware of any other vulnerabilities the resident may have.
According to its records, the landlord first received reports of a leak into the block of flats in September 2023. The resident first reported water damage and damp issues into his kitchen 4 times in March 2024. He reported that the problem was getting worse and water was seeping into plug sockets. There was additional damage to cupboards, wall and blinds. On 4 April 2024, the landlord inspected, and found repairs were needed due to excessive moisture within the property.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 11 April 2024. He wanted the landlord to resolve the issue. He was aware his neighbour was dealing with issues from the same leak, and he was worried for their health and safety. He said:
1. he had experienced a month of damp and mould in the living room and kitchen due to constant water damage from the top of the block. He believed this was due to roofing and guttering issues.
2. there was an ant problem due to the cracks and holes caused by the water damage.
3. je was unable to use the kitchen cupboards and plug sockets due to mould and water damage.
4. the smell of mould was overtaking the house, and he was worried for his wife’s health.
5. he had been told this was not a priority fix.
The landlord responded on 12 April 2024. It apologised for inconvenience. It stated that its contractors would contact him regarding follow on repairs needed, but that remedial work would be done once the leak had been fixed. It told the resident to contact it if there were emergency repairs needed to electrics or the ceiling.
The resident raised a stage 2 on 23 April 2024. He said the property was mouldier by the day and the smell was very bad. He repeated the points above and said plants were growing externally. He said communication was inadequate and that he was frustrated and distressed. He asked when internal and external work would be undertaken.
The landlord made the electrics safe on 24 April 2024. In May 2024, it conducted investigative work and found water was holding beneath the base of a neighbour’s balcony floor.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 June 2024. It apologised and said there was severe water leakage into the property. It acknowledged damp and mould was forming in his property due to the leak and that it would act as soon as possible to resolve new problems. The landlord said it intended to:
1. gain access to the terrace above the resident’s property to investigate and carry out repairs if necessary.
2. satisfy all possible sources of leak had been investigated before raising a defect report for the green/brown roof to developers.
3. offer £500 compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused and the delay in the stage 2 response.
The resident contacted this Service on 3 September 2024. He was still unhappy because there were ongoing leaks into his property and damp and mould as a result. He said the landlord had inspected and made the electrics safe but had done nothing further to rectify the problem. He wanted the landlord to permanently resolve the issue.
The resident continued to report the issue in Autumn 2024 and Winter 2024/25. On 17 April 2025, he confirmed to this Service that the damp and mould issue was ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, some of the records provided by the landlord were incorrectly dated and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which classes damp and mould and electrical hazards as a category 1 hazard. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from a hazard and to be fit for human habitation.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will:
1. attend within 24 hours when there is an immediate danger. Repair works may make safe and lower the immediate risk, with follow on repairs required.
2. aim to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
On 24 March 2024, the resident reported water damage, damp and mould into his kitchen. Between 24 March and 2 April 2024, the resident reported this issue 5 times. He said that the damp had caused the blind to fall out of the wall, and he felt it was high risk. The landlord’s policy sets out 25 days to complete routine repairs. The landlord followed it’s repairs policy and arranged for a damp and mould assessment on 4 April 2024.
The landlord’s damp and mould assessment on 4 April 2024 identified indications of excessive moisture in the property and a possible external drainage issue which was allowing water ingress. It noted visible mould and mildew and stated a mould wash was needed but could not be carried out as an external repair was needed first. As of April 2025, this mould wash had not been completed.
On 27 March 2024, the resident reported that the problem had got worse and that water was now near the electrics. He stated he had called the emergency line and that he had been told a non-urgent order had been raised for mould removal. The resident’s expectations were not managed and this resulted in distress, as he was expecting an urgent appointment to relieve his health and safety concerns. The landlord has not provided evidence of the resident’s phone calls. This record keeping failure means it is not possible to fully assess the landlord’s actions.
On 2 April 2024 the resident told the landlord he had stopped using the plug sockets due to water seeping into them. The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 April 2024 to ask for an update. On 10 April 2024 the landlord asked the resident to email it with ‘P1’ (priority 1) in the subject to get the electrics fixed.
From 27 March 2024, the landlord was aware that there was water entering the plug sockets. The landlord was already on notice of the issue, to ask the resident to contact them again with the same information was unacceptable. It did not follow its repairs policy and operated an obstructive reporting process which delayed the landlord’s response and caused the resident time, trouble and distress.
The landlord recorded difficulty accessing the property to assess the leak into the plug sockets on 11 April 2024. However, there is no record of appointment made or communicated with the resident. Evidence shows that the resident was proactively communicating with the landlord on this day and asking for support. The resident was caused time and trouble by the landlord’s communication failure.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 11 April 2024. He reported the above issues and for the third time said there was water damage to the plug sockets. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 12 April 2024. It asked the resident to contact it, if emergency repairs were required to make the electrics safe. This is a further example of the landlord being obstructive in completing its repairs obligations.
The resident continued to contact the landlord to ask for an update and report issues. The landlord records turning off the affected plug sockets and making the electrics safe on 24 April 2024. This was 28 days after the resident first reported the issue. The landlord failed to follow it’s repairs policy.
Between April and June 2024, the resident continued to regularly ask the landlord for updates and escalated his complaint. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it could not rectify the internal mould and damp damage until it had resolved the external leak. It intended to:
1. investigate the terrace above the property and carry out repairs if necessary.
2. satisfy all possible sources of the leak and if necessary, raise a defect report for the roof with the original developers.
3. regularly update the resident.
The landlord acknowledged severe water leakage into the property in its stage 2 response. It recognised the inconvenience and distress caused and offered £400 compensation. While the offer of compensation went some way to putting things right. The landlord’s final complaint response failed to identify what learning it had taken from the complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The landlord undertook a damp and mould assessment in April 2024. This highlighted a number of actions required to resolve the damp and mould, however the landlord did not action these.
As part of this investigation, the landlord provided evidence until January 2025. Its records show two cancelled repair jobs to the roof on 2 and 8 August 2024 and that there was an outstanding repair of a full gutter clearance on 8 January 2025. The landlord has not evidenced that it followed its proposed stage 2 repairs remedies to completion. This was not in line with its repairs or complaints policies and was a failure.
Evidence shows that the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates. This was not in line with its proposed stage 2 remedy.
In summary, there were several cumulative failings including:
1. a delay of 28 days in making the damaged electrics safe.
2. an obstructive repairs reporting process.
3. a failure to action the recommendations from the damp and mould assessment.
4. a failure to follow its proposed solutions to completion.
5. record keeping failures.
The resident has explained the impact these failures have had on him and his wife. He says he is distressed and worried about their health. He says they do not spend time in the house and cannot use the kitchen fully because of the damp and mould damage. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the severe water leak and offered financial compensation, it did not address the detriment to the resident.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it learnt from the complaint or took actions to put it right. Considering the landlord’s stage 2 compensation offer and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The Ombudsman considers that this did amount to maladministration and considering the landlord’s compensation policy we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 for the distress caused. The £400 already offered in the stage 2 response can be deducted if already paid.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out what good complaint handling looks like. The Code and further guidance are available on our website.
The Code states that at the completion of each stage of the complaints process the landlord should write to the resident advising a number of details:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The outcome of the complaint.
3. The reasons for any decisions made.
4. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
5. Details of any outstanding actions.
6. Details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
The Ombudsman is clear that effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord should acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. It should also name any learning to ensure failings are not repeated.
The landlord’s complaint policy defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord or those acting on its behalf. Complaints could be made in a variety of ways, including directly to any colleague. The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the service he was receiving via email on 8 April 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this as a complaint. This caused the resident inconvenience as he then had to raise another formal complaint. This was a failing.
The landlord’s policy stated stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. The resident used the landlord’s complaint form on 11 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged this within its policy timeframe. It responded within 10 working days on 23 April 2024. This was appropriate.
Stage 2 complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days and a final written response provided within 20 working days. If further time was needed, the landlord would explain the reasons why to the resident in writing. The resident responded on 23 April 2024 to escalate the complaint stating he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The landlord did not follow its policy and acknowledge this as an escalation.
The failure to escalate caused the resident time and trouble because he then had to make another complaint escalation on 2 May. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 8 May 2024. This was 10 working days after the resident first escalated his complaint and was not reasonable.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 June 2024. The date of writing and the date of the original complaint were incorrect in this document. This was 29 working days after the landlord acknowledged the complaint and 40 working days after the resident first said he was unhappy with the stage 1 response. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy, the Complaint Handling Code and was a failure.
On several occasions, the landlord said it would reply to the resident but did not provide responses in the timescales it had given. The landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint and did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised.
In its stage 2 response the landlord set out actions it intended to take to rectify the issue. However, the landlord did not provide timescales for these actions and failed to follow up to ensure the works were complete. Further, paragraph 6.5 of the Complaint Handling Code states that landlords must set out what will happen and by when in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. That did not happen in this case.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused, acknowledged the severe leak and offered £100 compensation for complaint handling issues. It failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity. It took limited steps to put things right and to fix the underlying issue. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above. This is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £650.This is made up of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its damp and mould handling failures. The £400 offered in the stage 2 response can be deducted if already paid.
  2. £50 for its complaint handling failures.
3. complete outstanding repairs needed to rectify the leak, damp and mould within 28 days. If it cannot do so it must explain why.
4. review its offer of compensation above to include its failure to comply with our original order to fully remedy the leak to date (along with the associated repairs). To calculate said compensation on an ongoing basis up to and including the date of full completion.
5. provide documentary evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days.