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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202416766)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416766

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 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. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to leaking guttering and damaged window and the resident’s reports the required repairs were causing damp and mould.
    2. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in a basement flat. The building is 4 stories high. The landlord’s records show it has recorded vulnerabilities for her of auto immune issues affecting her kidney and mobility problems.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord in November 2023 there was a leak from the guttering of the building. This was causing water to fall and leak into her kitchen. The landlord initially attended and noted it required scaffolding to complete further investigations and works. It then declined scaffolding due to the cost.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 February 2024. She cited issues with its response to the repairs, the effect the leaking water was having, including causing damp and mould, and that the kitchen window would not open, causing condensation. She also informed it of the effects the issues were having on her health. She requested it complete the required repairs to the guttering, the window, and damp and mould. She requested it also compensate her.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 29 February 2024. It provided responses regarding the guttering, the impact of the water leaking and the kitchen window. It offered the resident £120 compensation.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 3 June 2024. She stated the landlord had failed to keep in contact with her and provided no updates regarding the works required.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 28 November 2024. It confirmed it had completed the guttering works but there were delays with it doing so. It provided responses regarding the damp and mould and kitchen repairs. It offered the resident an additional £100 compensation.
  7. In bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has said she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response or handling of the matters. She says it has not resolved the kitchen window repair or damp and mould issues. She wants it to complete the kitchen window repair, treat the damp and mould, and increase its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. In contact with the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concerns about the impact the situation has had on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed 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 over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the impact of her health conditions is 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. The resident felt the landlord should accept liability for the damage caused to her personal property by damp and mould. Liability is a legal issue and so would need to be considered using legal avenues. Whilst the Ombudsman is unable to make a direct finding of liability, this investigation will look at how the landlord managed the complaint about the damage, as well as the landlord’s response to reports of any works required.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs

  1. On 2 November 2023, the landlord raised works at the resident’s property. The works stated she had informed it broken guttering was causing rain to pour onto her kitchen window and leak into the kitchen at her property. It also noted the kitchen window was swollen.
  2. The landlord has provided no further information regarding that visit including the actions and investigations by its contractor. This has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate its actions during that time. This was a failure by it to provide adequate records of its investigations into the matter.
  3. The landlord later wrote to the resident. The letter was undated. It said following the recent visit its contractor had requested scaffolding. It informed her on that occasion its surveyor had declined authorisation for the scaffolding and to contact it to discuss further. Its letter failed to provide her with any additional context including when or how it would be fulfilling its obligation to ensure it would complete the required repairs.
  4. The landlord’s records show that on 30 January 2024, following a review from its repairs review panel a new order was to be raised to assess the works required.
  5. The repairs at this stage had been outstanding for at least 62 working days. This was far beyond the timescale of 25 calendar days in the landlord’s repairs policy. There is no evidence it had either informed the resident of the reasons for such a delay or that it had taken any steps to mitigate any impact on her during that time.
  6. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 28 February 2024. She said she reported the issues with the guttering on 2 November 2023. When it rained water poured down creating large and deep puddles, hit concrete steps, and poured onto her kitchen window. The window was swollen, sealed, and could not be opened. That caused unnecessary condensation that cost her money to try and put right. She had bought an extractor hood for her cooker and a dehumidifier. It told her on 10 January 2024 that someone would contact her after it refused the fee for the erection of scaffolding. She had no response and the works were outstanding. The window was becoming damaged and had black mould. She informed it she was extremely vulnerable due to ill health and the issue was contributing to her breathing difficulties. She noted damage to the outside wall which was damp. She requested it fix the guttering and window plus compensation for the money paid for the extractor and dehumidifier, the extra cost of running those and its lack of communication.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 February 2024. It said it was aware of the works raised on 2 November 2023 and apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issues. It said its contractor had provided a quotation of works for review, but it had put forward for a further inspection by its maintenance team to inspect further works and provide a report. It had raised an order for its roofer to attend. As the guttering was a communal repair, it might not contact her with a repair date. However, it had asked its planning team to contact her directly to arrange a suitable appointment date to attend. Due to unforeseen weather conditions and the number of roofing repairs it had, there was a backlog. Its current process was for a panel to review all repair quotations to ensure accuracy and adherence to its standards. It noted there was additional damage occurring on the external wall and in her kitchen. This included her kitchen window not opening because of the guttering repair required. It informed her if she required a damp and mould wash, it could arrange one. Alternatively, she could arrange one once it had completed the repairs. It offered her £120 compensation for her time and effort.
  8. The landlord raised a further works order the same day citing the same works as the original order made in November 2023.
  9. In response to the stage 1 decision, the resident contacted the landlord on 29 February 2023. She said she felt the outcome to the complaint was suitable at that time but hoped it would resolve the guttering issue. She felt the outside and inside walls needed looking at by a professional contractor as there was damage and she believed that would cause problems further down the line. She stated however that the damp and mould wash, like the repair to the window, would be a waste of time as would only come back at the first rainfall. She appreciated it completing the damp and mould works once it had repaired the guttering. She repeated her concerns about her health.
  10. There was no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s comments or of any actions it took following her correspondence. She recontacted it on 5 April 2024. She said she had not heard anything about the guttering and her property was smelling of damp and mould. She asked if it had made any decision regarding the erection of scaffolding and, if so, when works would take place. She noted it had been 5 months since she reported the repair. She had resorted to opening her front door when cooking which let heat out of the property and was a security risk. The property was a cold and damp basement flat. She was doing all she could to ease the condensation but needed the work doing. She said she had health conditions that made her immunosuppressed. She could not afford to become unwell due to mould. She asked for it to find a way forward.
  11. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident. She escalated her complaint on 3 June 2024. She said following her contact on 5 April 2024 she had not had a reply. This was a further 2 months on and there was no news or updates on the works required. She felt ignored and that her illnesses were not a priority. That was despite the mould accumulating from the sealed window being hazardous to her health and wellbeing. It was 7 months since she contacted it about guttering, the window, and damp. Although it had someone look at the roof from ground level in January 2024 and quote for scaffolding, it did not agree with the costing and required more quotes. It had not progressed the works, and it was putting money ahead of health.
  12. The landlord records do show it requested scaffolding at the resident’s property on 25 June 2024. At that time, it was 7 months after she first reported the issue. The delay in it doing so was unreasonable and there is no evidence of an appropriate reason for the delay.
  13. On 28 June 2024 the landlord emailed the resident apologising for the length of time the repair was taking. It said it was aware the specialist roofing contractor recently attended and reported the requirement for scaffolding. It had contacted its internal roofing team for an update and would reply as soon as it could. Regarding her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2, it said should she still wish to do so, to let it know.
  14. The resident responded the same day and confirmed her request to escalate her complaint. She noted it had not completed the guttering works; she had called for updates but had not received any and it told her on 3 occasions the works required scaffolding, but there had been no progress. She said she was also aware it rejected the first cost for scaffolding due to funding. She felt it was not taking the repair seriously and did not consider her health issues. She repeated the health issues she had and that she had Drs and consultants who could provide details and what black mould could do to her with her many vulnerabilities. She had not been able to open the window which caused black mould problems.
  15. This was another instance of the resident reporting damp and mould and her health issues. There is again no evidence the landlord considered this. Its records are not clear on the actions it took following the emails of 28 June 2024. Its records on 29 August 2024 confirm it erected scaffolding on 13 August 2024 and it had attempted to get updates as to the status of the repairs. It noted its systems had no notes regarding the guttering works and the resident’s bedroom and the kitchen was now severely covered in mould which was affecting her health. It also noted it could not raise a mould wash until it had completed the guttering works.
  16. The landlord received a property report following its contractor’s visit to the resident’s property on 17 September 2024 regarding damp and mould. The report noted there was visible mould in the property and the kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom windows did not open. It recommended repairing them to enable adequate ventilation. This was the first instance of the landlord conducting any substantial investigation regarding the damp and mould in the property. This came 7 months after the resident had raised the issue of damp and mould in her complaint.
  17. The landlord issued a new stage 1 response on 16 October 2024. This was under a different complaint reference number to the resident’s previous complaint. In its response it said it raised a works order for 22 October 2024. That was for repairs to the kitchen window as the wood was rotten and could not be opened. It said it would raise any follow-on works. It had chased up the scaffolding at her property and the contractor would be in contact with her with the date it planned to remove it.
  18. The evidence the landlord provided does not show the origin of this complaint or that the resident escalated it further. It is therefore not clear why it issued a stage 1 response when it was in the process of responding to the resident’s original complaint for the same issues. However, as the issues responded to are the subject of this investigation, we have considered that stage 1 response as part of the landlord’s response.
  19. The resident replied to the landlord the same day and said although she appreciated it informed her it would complete the window repair on 22 October 2024, it had not addressed the damage to her possessions and herself. Since reporting the repair, she had suffered 3 chest infections due to the damp and mould. One of the landlord’s workmen attended to wash down the mould build up in the bathroom and bedroom, took pictures of ruined clothing, and put a moisture sensor in the hallway. Her partner had been moving the cooker and washing machine to get to black mould that had accumulated. She repeated the effects on her health and stated that at the time of reporting the repair it told her that did not matter. Her clothing had been ruined and was at a loss due to the delayed repair. She requested it replace them. She had pleaded with it to get the work done and it told her frequently it would respond to her but ignored her.
  20. The landlord responded to her claims for damages the next day. It said claims for damaged belongings or loss of personal items fell under insurance responsibility and it could not consider such claims in its complaints process. It informed her to write to the insurance team and what details she should provide.
  21. The landlord’s response here was appropriate and in line with the provisions of its insurance policy. It provided her with the correct information and appropriately explained what details she needed to provide.
  22. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 22 November 2024 that following the appointment for the windows on 22 October 2024, the contractor said the window needed replacing but the landlord had not contacted her, and the window was still unrepaired.
  23. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident’s original complaint on 28 November 2024. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint to Stage 2 and noted her request was not actioned on a few occasions. Its response provided a summary of its stage 1 response from February 2024. It added that its repairs records showed it determined in June 2024, following attendance by its contractors, that the works required scaffolding. Erection of the scaffolding took place on 7 August 2024, and it conducted guttering works on 13 September 2024. It was aware that because of the guttering, which required a repair, additional damage was occurring on the external wall and in her kitchen. It could arrange a damp and mould wash if she required one. Alternatively, she could raise a mould wash and repair to the kitchen window once it had conducted the guttering repair. It asked her to let it know if that had already been done or if she needed it to raise a new job. It upheld her complaint based on the significant delay of the repair and her request to escalate to Stage 2 and it not responding to other communications. It said considering her experience and vulnerabilities it offered additional compensation of £25 for distress and £25 for inconvenience.
  24. There were discrepancies in the landlord’s complaint response. It provided a timeline of events to the resident for the works to the guttering and it did acknowledge the delays completing those works. However, it stated it determined it required scaffolding in June 2024, but its repairs records show it initially requested and refused scaffolding in January 2024. It also stated it completed the works in September 2024. It however later referred for her being able to raise a mould wash and window repair once it completed the guttering repair. This would likely have caused confusion to the resident. The final response also failed to acknowledge or provide an explanation why the kitchen window and damp and mould repairs remained outstanding when she had raised those along with the guttering repairs.
  25. The landlord failed to offer any explanation for the delays in completing the window repair. This was despite the resident including the window as part of the original report in November 2023 and in subsequent correspondence. It was also part of the report provided to the landlord following the inspection of 11 September 2024. At the time of completing the complaints process the repair was still outstanding.
  26. Although it offered compensation to the resident for the delays she had incurred, the length of the delays to repair the guttering was excessive with no substantial reason for such a delay. The works to the window and damp and mould remained outstanding, despite there also being no substantial reason preventing repairs taking place once it had completed the guttering works. Its offer of compensation did not go far enough to provide appropriate redress to her.
  27. The Ombudsman’s investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s records that were provided to this Service. Its repair records lacked detail such as repair completion dates and details about the actual works completed. The records were therefore difficult to follow without cross referencing with other information, such as the resident’s own records. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review is repair record keeping.
  28. Overall, the landlord failed to complete the required repairs within an appropriate timescale. During that time, it failed to keep the resident informed of the progress or processes it was taking, causing her to repeatedly contact it to only receive delayed responses, or in some case no responses at all. Once responses were issued to her, they did not go far enough to explain the situation and in the case with the stage 2 response provided contradictory information. Throughout the timescales considered in this investigation the landlord has not evidenced that it appropriately considered her reports that the damp and mould was affecting her health. This was maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint Handling

  1. The resident made her complaint on 24 February 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 February 2024. The response was issued within the landlord’s complaint policy timescales of 10 working days to issue a stage 1 response.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 June 2024. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged that complaint. When it wrote to her on 28 June 2024 to provide an update of the outstanding repairs it asked if she still wished to escalate the complaint to let it know.
  3. It is not clear why the landlord would make such a request regarding escalating her complaint. It is clear she had requested escalation of her complaint and showed no inclination that she wanted to withdraw that request. At the time of its correspondence, it was already beyond the timescale of 20 working days to provide a response to her. It has not shown it either acknowledged or provided any updates regarding her complaint during that time. Its request for her to confirm escalation of the complaint prolonged the complaints process further and likely caused her more time and inconvenience.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 November 2024. It issued its response 128 working days after the resident originally requested to escalate the complaint. There was no evidence provided to substantiate such a delay.
  5. Although the landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response and offered £50 compensation, the amount offered did not provide sufficient redress for the impact of such a significant delay.
  6. The landlord failed to implement the resident’s original request to escalate her complaint. This caused her to have to confirm her request to escalate a second time. Once it had escalated the complaint it issued the stage 2 response far beyond its complaint policy timescales for a stage 2 response and failed to offer appropriate redress for those failures. This was service failure by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to leaking guttering and damaged window and the resident’s reports the required repairs were causing damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the following orders:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the total sum of £350, including the £170 it offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, if it has not already done so, for the failings regarding the repairs identified in this case.
    3. Pay the resident the total sum of £100, including the £50 it offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so, for the failings identified in its complaint handling.
    4. Contact the resident to arrange inspections of the property to:
      1. Confirm the current status of the guttering and window repairs in the property.
      2. Inspect the property for damp and mould issues.
    5. Within 2 weeks of the inspections write to the resident with details of any findings and any required works, including a timetable for it to complete those works.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider reviewing its repairs record keeping and consider if they provide suitable information regarding the scope and outcomes of works taking place.