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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202441299)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441299

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

2 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 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 response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs related to damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived at the property, which is a 3 bedroom house, since 2010.
  2. The resident reported issues with damp and mould in December 2023. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 22 December 2023. This identified mould in several rooms. It recommended the landlord complete a mould clean and investigate an unidentified issue with pipework connected to the kitchen sink. The landlord completed a mould clean in January 2024 and attended numerous times between February 2024 and September 2024 to investigate issues related to damp, mould, and drainage. It completed another damp and mould inspection on 14 November 2024, which identified rising damp at the property.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 December 2024. She said that the landlord had evidence that there was rising damp at her property. She complained that she was constantly having to chase it for updates. She said that numerous operatives had been to her property to look at the same problem without taking action afterwards. On 17 January 2025, the resident advised that there were outstanding repairs required to her kitchen and bathroom extractor fans.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 12 February 2025. It apologised for the delay in it completing repairs. It provided details of her properties repair history since December 2023. It explained that it had completed inspections in November 2024, which identified issues with rising damp and drainage. It said it would update her on progress once it had information to share. It emailed the resident on 18 February 2025 to advised that it would complete a joint inspection with its contractor on 21 February 2025 regarding the drainage issues.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint in February 2025. She said it had already completed inspections and wanted a date for it to complete the work. She explained that her electricity costs had increased due to constantly using dehumidifiers. She said it had not provided an update on works related to rising damp. On 7 March 2025, the resident asked the landlord if it could install a French drain to resolve the drainage issue and a vent to improve ventilation in her son’s bedroom. She also asked what it would do regarding cracks in her pipework identified during a CCTV drain inspection.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 March 2025. It explained it had now completed all external works. It said it was willing to arrange for an independent surveyor to provide a second opinion regarding a French drain. It said that it would investigate and provide an update on the CCTV surveys. It offered to reimburse the cost of using the dehumidifiers and asked the resident for evidence of her charges. The landlord apologised for its failures, including failures in its complaint handling. It offered compensation of £1,260.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She asked us to investigate her complaint in March 2025. She said that there were several outstanding issues with damp and mould, such as rising damp and issues in her kitchen that the landlord had not resolved.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will take responsibility for identifying, investigating, and resolving damp and mould as quickly and effectively as it can. It states that following a report of damp it will complete an assessment of the property within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem. It will record any remedial works identified and raise for repair within 10 working days of its assessment. It states that it will keep residents updated throughout. Its repair policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 working days.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. For example, it completed a damp and mould inspection in December 2023 and a mould clean in January 2024 within the timescales of its policies. However, there were delays following up on recommendations from its inspections. For example, it took until the 23 February 2024 to start investigating the kitchen pipework issue it identified on 22 December 2023. This identified possible external factors as the cause in May 2024, but the landlord did not investigate this further until November 2024. It also did not raise a job to follow up on recommendations from a CCTV drain survey on 25 November 2024, until after its stage 1 complaint response on 12 February 2025.
  3. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays. It said it would provide updates once received on outstanding work related to damp and drainage issues. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for failures in its repair handling and to acknowledge that there were outstanding issues for it to investigate.
  4. The resident reported issues with cold temperatures in her kitchen, as well as damp and mould in December 2023. She also reported that her extractor fans needed replacing as part of her complaint to the landlord in January 2025. Its repair records show that between 30 April and 3 May 2024, it identified that it could not seal a hole in the kitchen where pipework entered the property and altering the pipework would not resolve the issue. It stated that there was an issue with the damp proofing or insulation on the external wall that was causing the issues within the kitchen.
  5. A damp and mould inspection on 14 November 2024 identified rising damp within several rooms, including the kitchen. This inspection stated that a new damp proof course was required on most external walls. The repair report for this visit lists work required to the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans.
  6. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it had requested an update regarding the rising damp. It said it would contact the resident with a decision once it had received an update. In her complaint to us, the resident advised that work to her extractor fans and external walls to address rising damp was outstanding.
  7. We have seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a decision or any further update regarding the rising damp or extractor fans at her property. It did not respond to these issues in its final complaint response. This was unreasonable, as in line with its policy, the landlord should have arranged repairs. If there was a reason it had not arranged repairs, it should have provided an update to the resident to explain the reason for this. In addition, in line the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), it should have provided a response to these issues in its final complaint response.
  8. In her escalated complaint, the resident asked the landlord to install a French drain in the garden as part of the solution to the ongoing internal damp, mould, and drainage issues. She said that a CCTV survey of her pipe work had found cracks leading towards the external kitchen drain. She also said that the drain on her rear patio was still connected to the kitchen external drain, where there was damp. She asked what it would do regarding these issues. She also said that a vent in her son’s bedroom was plastered over and painted years ago. She explained that the bedroom was damp and affected by mould each year. She asked if the landlord could investigate improving the air flow in this room.
  9. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it would investigate the CCTV survey and provide an update on this. It also said that its area surveyor was happy to arrange a site inspection with an independent surveyor to get a second opinion on external work, including creating a French drain. It did not provide a response regarding the request for improved ventilation in her son’s room.
  10. No evidence has been provided of the landlord updating the resident about the CCTV survey or any other external works. In response to our query, it told us on 13 June 2025 that it had already completed a significant amount of work at the property. It said that there was a misunderstanding in its final response, as its area surveyor had told the resident she could appoint an independent surveyor for a second opinion should there be any further concerns.
  11. However, in its complaint response, it said it was willing to arrange a site visit with an independent surveyor to complete a further inspection, when it actually meant she could arrange one herself. It acknowledged that this was not communicated clearly in its complaint response. It told us that it was confident that the work it had completed was appropriate and sufficient to address the issues it had identified.
  12. The evidence confirms that before the resident requested a French drain, the landlord had already completed a CCTV drain survey on 26 November 2024. This found that the drainage system was insufficient for the amount of water flowing through it, causing regular blockages and back surges. It recommended that the landlord excavate the back garden to install a soak away and to install 2 downpipes. The landlord completed a joint inspection in February 2025 to determine the scope of works. It confirmed it had completed external works by 17 March 2025.
  13. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice of its contractors for the work required to resolve the drainage issues at the resident’s property. However, if it considers that these works are sufficient to address the issues its inspections had identified (as it informed us), it should have explained this to the resident, including why there was no need for the French drain. Instead, it told her it would arrange a surveyor to provide a second opinion, which it has now said was an error. It was a failing that the landlord provided incorrect information to the resident regarding what steps it would take to consider her request for further works, and then did not update her on the works it had already done.
  14. The resident complained that she was running 3 dehumidifiers due to damp in her property. In its final complaint response, the landlord asked her to provide copies of her bills and meter readings for it to consider. It said it would reimburse her for her costs. Given the long running damp and mould issue it was good practise for the landlord to offer to reimburse her for these costs. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask for evidence of her costs, as that way it could ensure it was reimbursing her for the correct amount.
  15. The resident told us that she had provided copies of her bills to the landlord and received her copies back. She said the landlord had contacted her to ask questions about her bills in April 2025, but she had received no further updates. We have not seen any evidence from the resident of her sending bills to the landlord or received any updates from the landlord regarding this issue. We have included an order to address this outstanding issue.
  16. The landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £1,260 for its poor repair handling and its impact. This included £60 for failures in its complaint handling, which along with its apology was a reasonable resolution for the delay in its response.
  17. The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in circumstances where there have been repeated failings and a significant impact, but where the landlord has acknowledged its mistakes and attempted to put things right. It reasonably reflected the length of time the repair issues had continued unresolved and demonstrated the landlord’s appreciation of the scale of the failings it had identified. If the landlord had resolved all the issues the resident raised with it, the compensation it offered would likely have been sufficient to resolve the complaint. However, it did not do so.
  18. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time. In its response to her complaint the landlord took appropriate steps to acknowledge, apologise and compensate for its failures. However, the landlord incorrectly said it would arrange for a surveyor to provide a second opinion on the external works. It also failed to provide a response regarding the resident’s concerns with rising damp, extractor fan repairs, improved ventilation or an update regarding the CCTV survey. The nature and relevance of these issues in the context of the resident’s wider damp and mould concerns meant that its failure to address them was a serious omission.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs related to damp and mould.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £1,510. This is comprised of:
    1. £1,260 already offered in its complaint responses.
    2. £250 for the failures identified within this report.
  2. It is not clear if the landlord considers that the external works it completed have resolved all the damp and mould related issues at the resident’s property. However, the resident considers that several issues remain unresolved. Therefore, within 8 weeks, the landlord must visit the resident’s property to discuss and identify what damp and mould problems have persisted or reoccurred. It must then create a work plan to address the issues it identifies. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s subsequent handling of the work, she is entitled to raise this as a new complaint with the landlord and then return to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
  3. Within 8 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has considered the resident’s evidence of increased electricity usage due to running dehumidifiers, and the outcome of its review. If it requires any further information to complete its assessment, it should contact the resident to request any missing information.
  4. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service within their respective deadlines.