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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202416158)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416158

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

3 April 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 of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat owned by the landlord.
  2. In December 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said its delay in replacing her windows caused mould in her living room, bedroom, and bathroom.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 February 2024. It said it had already submitted the windows for a component renewal; however, it was unable to confirm when this would happen. It booked a window inspection to see if it could do any interim repairs and offered the resident £300 compensation. It increased its compensation offer to £350 on 11 March 2024.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 March 2024. She said the window frame was rotten beyond repair and there was a large amount of black mould on the wall. She stated the landlord’s staff said the replacement was urgent during a recent inspection.
  5. On 20 June 2024, the landlord responded at stage 2. It explained the temporary sealant it put in place should prevent water ingress until it can undertake the window replacement. It recognised there had been miscommunication with contractors with the exterior work, and complaint handling delays. It offered the resident total compensation of £370.
  6. The landlord’s final complaint response dissatisfied the resident and so she referred her complaint to this Service. To resolve the complaint, she wants the issues resolved within her property and compensation to reflect the stress she experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the way the landlord managed the issues caused stress and impacted her 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, concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
  2. In February 2025, the resident informed this Service that damp and mould had reappeared in areas of the property without double-glazed windows. Our investigation considers matters up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response, 20 June 2024. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint directly with the landlord on any outstanding matters since that date.

Damp and mould

  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. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. Where age and wear and tear affect key components such as kitchens, bathrooms, doors, and windows, it will replace these through a planned programme of work.  
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. The landlord’s records show the resident reported water ingress from the wooden window ledge when it rained in January 2023. There is also reference to mould underneath the living room window in December 2022 and work orders to sand back the windowsill in the living room.
  7. Within the landlord’s internal correspondence, there is reference to a damp and mould inspection from 2022, however it has not provided a copy of the report to this Service. This was a shortcoming. We expect a landlord to retain and provide accurate contemporaneous records of any assessments it undertook relating to the substantive issue such as photographs, written notes, or reports.
  8. The landlord’s records show it raised a work order in September 2023 and a recall visit in October 2023 due to the resident’s further reports of leaks from the bedroom windowsill causing mould. We find the landlord responded in line with the timescale set out in its repairs policy in these instances.
  9. In December 2023, the landlord arranged for a follow-up damp and mould inspection. The report states it completed mould treatment and educated the resident about best practice to reduce mould within the property. The report said that the outside wall behind the main bedroom may benefit from some form of repellent/waterproof paint to prevent water ingress, as the moisture reading of the wall was 33%. The landlord raised an order to arrange investigations into potential water ingress and complete exterior works. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, there were delays completing the proposed investigations and works. It is unclear from the evidence available whether the landlord has now completed all exterior work. We have therefore made a recommendation regarding this below.
  10. The Ombudsman recognises social landlords have limited resources and should manage these responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. As such, when the resident reported the issues with the windows, it was reasonable for the landlord to initially explore the option of a repair rather than a replacement. Window replacements are major works and not something a landlord can usually undertake on an immediate basis. Landlords have a specific budget each fiscal year. Having a defined annual schedule for major works allows it to use its budget effectively by identifying in advance which properties require replacement components and managing the works accordingly.
  11. Where a landlord cannot complete a component replacement straight away, we would expect it to attend the property and consider whether it could do any interim work to reduce the impact on the resident and the property. In this case, the landlord demonstrated that it completed several mould washes and offered additional mould treatments. It also attended in February 2024 to inspect the windows and completed a repair in March 2024. The contractor reported that the window, “…needs to be replaced ASAP to prevent further damage to walls and mould build up….” In these circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to communicate with its planned maintenance team to discuss the comments made by its contractor and explore options. It failed to demonstrate that it did so, which was a shortcoming.
  12. The landlord evidenced that it replaced a window and door in the property by providing a quote from contractors and photos of “before” and “after.” The photos are undated. It is not clear whether further window replacements are outstanding, so we are unable to comment further in respect of this.
  13. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord’s final response put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We also consider whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  14. In this case, the landlord decided that a window replacement was necessary and advised the resident that its planned maintenance team would manage it and communicate with her directly. However, it was unable to provide a specific timescale. The resident’s frustration with the length of time she had to wait is understandable in the circumstances. Further, within the landlord’s response it identified delays with arranging scaffolding and scheduling the exterior works. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident within its complaint response, apologised, and offered compensation of £220.
  15. The compensation offered by the landlord falls within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). We therefore conclude that the landlord has offered reasonable compensation for the failings identified up to the date of its final complaint response.

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 resident initially complained on 12 December 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 51 working days later. She escalated her complaint on 15 March 2024 and the landlord issued its final complaint response 66 working days later. The Code serves to illustrate that this case was kept open for an unreasonable duration at both stages of the complaint.
  3. Under the Code, within its complaint response, landlords must confirm the complaint stage, definition, decision, reasons for outcome, remedy offer, outstanding actions, and escalation rights to the resident. The landlord informed this Service that its communication with the resident on 26 February 2024 was its stage 1 response, however, the email itself states it was a “progress update” on the complaint. It also failed to include information about how to escalate the complaint. These were shortcomings in its complaint handling.
  4. The stage 2 response was the landlord’s opportunity to put matters right for the resident. The Code states that, when responding to a complaint, the “remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate.” A landlord should follow its proposed remedy through to completion. In the resident’s communication to this Service, she disputed that the landlord had completed the repairs as promised at stage 2. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the completion of these repairs based on the limited evidence available.
  5. Under our 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.
  6. The landlord offered £150 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 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of:
    1.  The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property
    2. The associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £150 previously offered for its handling of the complaint and the £220 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its handling of the substantive issue. This is a total of £370. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis the above redress is paid to the resident if it has not yet done so.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident directly to address her recent reports of damp and mould that she told this Service about in February 2025.
  3. The Ombudsman strongly recommends that the landlord considers whether any additional compensation is due to the resident from the date of its stage 2 response, up to the date it completed the repairs to the exterior of the property (if it has done so). If the repairs are outstanding, it should update the resident with an action plan and timescales for completion of the works.