London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202434180)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434180

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 May 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:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Repairs.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 1-bedroom flat, where she lives with her daughter. The landlord is a housing association, which owns and manages the property. The landlord has a record that the resident has asthma. The resident’s daughter also has asthma.
The resident reported to the landlord that there was damp and mould in the property and it sent a contractor on 8 March 2024 to assess the issue. The contractor treated mould in the hallway and a follow-up report recommended the installation of continuous fans and the treatment of mould in the bedroom. On 26 April 2024 the landlord repaired a toilet flush in the resident’s property, which the resident said had been reported 2 months earlier.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 5 May 2024. She stated that the landlord’s contractor had informed her there was rising damp around the chimney breast in the bedroom and living room, and this had not been addressed. The resident stated that she was having to sleep in the living room with her daughter due to the effect of the damp conditions in the bedroom on their asthma.
The landlord installed fans at the property on 13 May 2024. Three days later the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and said:
1. The area where the fans were installed had not been redecorated.
2. Since the fans were installed, the lights were not working in her bedroom and hallway.
3. The toilet flush had stopped working again.
4. She had not received an appointment for the surveyor to look at the damp around the chimney.
The resident chased the landlord a further 6 times before the final complaint response was sent on 27 August 2024. The landlord advised that decoration following a repair is the resident’s responsibility. It provided repair appointments for the lights and toilet flush. The landlord also stated that the building surveyor would arrange an installation of additional vents in the property and investigate the damp around the chimney. It offered the resident £250 in compensation for her distress and inconvenience.
Three months later the landlord advised the resident that jobs had been raised incorrectly which had led to work not being completed. It offered an additional £50 in compensation for the additional delay. The lights in the bedroom and hallway were repaired in December 2024. Air vents were installed in March 2025. The resident advised this Service that she repaired the toilet herself because the landlord did not do so, and that she is still waiting for an investigation into the damp around the chimney.
In bringing the complaint to this Service the resident is seeking further compensation as she considers that the amount awarded was not sufficient redress for her time and trouble. She also wants to be reimbursed for the costs that she has incurred in purchasing a dehumidifier and decorating materials, and to have the outstanding works to the chimney completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the household. 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. 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.

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

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep the structure of the property repaired, including internal and external walls, major internal plasterwork, chimneys, and flues.
The landlord was required by section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It was also responsible for making sure the property was fit for human habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System was a relevant factor to assessing fitness for human habitation. Related repair or other remedial action was required within a reasonable period.
On March 2024 the landlord’s contractor visited the property to assess it for damp and mould, following concerns raised by the resident. The contractor advised the resident at the visit that there might be rising damp causing trapped water around the chimney breast. In its report to the landlord, the contractor advised “there are signs of rising damp on the external brickwork, and it is possible that this is contributing to the mould issue in the bedroom”.
However, the landlord’s contractor did not list any works for rising damp under its recommendations in the report. Instead, it advised that one wall in the hallway had been treated with a mould wash and recommended that a wall in the bedroom would need the same treatment. It also suggested installing continuous fans in the bathroom and kitchen to improve ventilation.
Two months after the visit, the resident contacted the landlord for an update and was advised that it had stopped working with its contractor. As a result, the resident believed that work to address rising damp in the property had been overlooked. She made a complaint to the landlord saying that she and her daughter had been unable to sleep in their shared bedroom for 3 months due to the impact of the damp environment on their asthma.
In its stage 1 response on 8 May 2024 the landlord advised the resident of the recommended works in the report and arranged for the fans to be installed the following week, and the mould wash to be done a month later.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the recommendations of its specialist contractors. However, it did not book in the recommended works from the report until the resident made a complaint 2 months after the report was produced. This was a failing by the landlord because its damp and mould policy states that once an assessment has been carried out, any remedial works identified would be raised within 10 working days and the resident kept informed of timescales to complete them.
The landlord’s surveyor attended on 6 June 2024 to look at the damp around the chimney, but the resident did not hear anything further about the outcome. We have seen evidence that the resident attempted to chase up the investigation outcome and remedial work to her chimney 6 times before the landlord updated the resident in its stage 2 response.
In the stage 2 response on 27 August 2024, the landlord advised that it would install 4 passive air vents (both sides of the windows in the bathroom and living room) for additional ventilation and would be carrying out further investigations into the chimney. The installation of the passive vents was fully completed on 7 March 2025 and the resident has advised this Service that she is still waiting for the investigation into the chimney to be completed.
The original damp and mould report, dated 8 March 2024, had made a specific reference to rising damp being a possible cause of the damp to the bedroom. It was a year before the passive air vents to improve ventilation in the bedroom were installed.
From May 2024 onwards, the resident informed the landlord that she was unable to sleep in the bedroom and tried to discuss the possibility of rising damp. A year later she has advised this Service that she is still sleeping in the living room with her daughter due to the damp conditions in the bedroom and the impact of the humidity on their health condition.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it is able to adjust its service standards for vulnerable residents where a delay would put them at risk because of their condition. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will consider the needs, vulnerabilities, and circumstances of its residents when offering advice about damp and mould. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability or adjusted its service or advice as a result of her medical condition.
Due to the on-going issue of damp in the property and the impact of high humidity on her asthma, the resident purchased a dehumidifier. The resident has requested that the landlord reimburse her for this purchase and has supplied a receipt. There is no evidence that the resident requested a dehumidifier from the landlord prior to this purchase. However, there is evidence that the resident tried to engage the landlord in communication about the damp and the effect on her health on a number of occasions without receiving a response.
The resident also found that when the mould wash was carried out in the bedroom, the mould was wiped from the surface of the wallpaper. When the resident peeled back the wallpaper after, the wall itself was mouldy underneath. Therefore, she redecorated the area and purchased specialist damp-proof paint to prevent the mould from returning. It was reasonable of the landlord to clean the visible mould during a mould wash, and to try not to disturb the resident’s internal decoration. However, we have not seen any evidence that the resident informed the landlord that she had discovered mould underneath the wallpaper, which would have given it the opportunity to carry out a further mould wash.
The compensation amount offered at stage 2 was for inconvenience and distress. The resident felt that this amount was not reflective of the impact on her and the time over which she had been experiencing the issue.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider paying compensation when it has failed to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are its responsibility, and the customer is continuing to live in poor conditions longer than is reasonable. The landlord paid £290 to the resident, including an additional £50 when the repairs were delayed by a further 3 months.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s mishandling of the damp and mould has been significant. There has been a longstanding delay in carrying out the repairs identified. The landlord has failed to act with appropriate urgency. Throughout this it has failed to maintain a reasonable level of communication with the resident. This has understandably had a significant detrimental impact on the resident, particularly given the vulnerabilities in the household.
The £290 paid by the landlord to the resident was in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance for situations where there has been a high level of impact on the resident in terms of distress and inconvenience. However, since this was awarded, she has waited an additional 6 months for the landlord to fully address the damp and mould. Therefore, the offer by the landlord has not sufficiently addressed the impact of the delay on the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy also states that it will consider paying compensation when it fails to follow its policies, procedures, or guidelines and this has a negative impact on the customer. In this instance, the resident and her child had a vulnerability that was directly impacted by the damp in the property. In addition to not completing the repairs in accordance with its published timescales, it also failed to follow its policy in regard to vulnerable customers, since it did not adjust its service standards or advice to the resident.
The landlord’s policy also allows for a partial refund of rent where a customer is not able to use a room in their home because of a repair which causes prolonged or unreasonable disruption. It adds that the customer’s specific situation or vulnerability must be considered when making this offer.
The landlord had not considered a partial refund of rent to the customer, even though the resident had reported that she was unable to use the room when she made her stage 1 complaint. Although the landlord has since completed some repairs, the resident is still unable to sleep in her bedroom due to the damp in the chimney not having been fully resolved.
Therefore, we find that the circumstances for maladministration apply in this case, and the redress needed to put things right for the resident is substantial.
The rent for the property between 2024-2025 was £176.92 per week. Therefore, we consider it would have been proportionate for the landlord to have also awarded compensation of £920, which is approximately 10% of the rent for the period since the resident made a complaint until the date of this report. We have therefore ordered that the landlord pay the resident an additional £920 in compensation. The rent and period of time are only indicative and used as a guide.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep repaired and in working order any installations for sanitation (including toilets and flushing systems), and electrical wiring such as sockets and switches. In its repairs policy, the landlord states it aims to complete routine repairs in 25 calendar days.
On 26 April 2024 the landlord renewed the toilet flushing system in the property. There is evidence that the resident had been waiting for 2 months for this repair, which was not in line with the landlord’s service standard.
The resident did not raise issues with repairs unrelated to damp and mould in her stage 1 complaint. However, around the same time that the continuous fans were installed as part of the damp and mould remedial works, the resident found that her bedroom and hallway lights stopped working. The resident felt that this was a related occurrence and reported it to the landlord when escalating her complaint to stage 2 on 16 May 2024. At the same time, she also reported that the toilet flush had stopped working again, despite it having been recently repaired.
Initially, the landlord advised the resident that she would need to report this separately to the call centre as they were new repairs. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. However, these repairs had not been considered at stage 1, therefore the landlord was able to advise the resident to report these repairs separately. There is no evidence that the resident reported these repairs in this way.
However, the resident communicated that she was escalating her complaint to stage 2 due to the landlord’s response to her request for repairs in the property. She stated that, from her experience, the landlord did not carry out repairs unless a complaint was raised. Therefore, the landlord addressed these repairs in its stage 2 complaint response on 27 August 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to have done this, having considered the history of the complaint. The landlord advised it had raised repair works for the lights and toilet flush.
Over the next 3 months, the resident chased the landlord for updates on the repairs. On 20 November 2024 the landlord advised the resident that the repairs had been incorrectly raised by its staff which had led to delays.
Although the resident did not report the required repairs to the lights and toilet using the landlord’s usual procedure, the landlord stated as part of its stage 2 response that it was arranging the works. The resident’s bedroom lights were repaired on 17 December 2024, which was almost 4 months after the landlord advised it had raised works orders. The resident has informed us that she repaired the toilet herself because of the length of time that she was waiting for the landlord to repair it.
Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of electrical and sanitation repairs was a failing to comply with its legal responsibilities and obligations under its repairs policy.
Part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint had been that the landlord did not redecorate the wall when it installed the continuous fan in the kitchen. Having seen evidence of the completed installation, the landlord made good the wall and left the resident to redecorate. The landlord’s compensation policy states that when undertaking day-to-day repairs to a customer’s property it will not usually redecorate. Therefore, the landlord was acting reasonably when it advised the resident that it would not redecorate.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation will be paid if a customer has had to live in poor conditions for longer than is reasonable due to the landlord’s failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are its responsibility. The landlord had offered compensation as part of its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, but there was no compensation specifically awarded to the resident for the delay relating to these repairs.
We find that the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s report of repairs. We order the landlord to pay an additional £175 to the resident for the 7 month delay in repairing the lights, and for failing to repair the toilet flush for a second time.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response was sent more than 3 months after the complaint was escalated.
The landlord sent a holding email to the resident 2 weeks before it sent its final complaint response. The landlord explained that since the resident had escalated her complaint there had been a high turnover of complaint handlers. This Service has seen evidence of 6 attempted communications from the resident to discuss the complaint with the landlord.
The landlord wrote in its stage 2 response that from reviewing this complaint, it had learnt that it needed to increase communication between itself and the customer to ensure that repairs are conducted in a timely manner. However, the resident continued to be unable to contact the landlord to discuss the outstanding issues of the complaint until 20 November 2024.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider the impact of any failures in its complaint handling and where it has not complied with the Code. The landlord did not acknowledge any complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response and therefore did not apologise or offer to compensate the resident for this. We find that there was a service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.
We order the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £75. This is within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there has been a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these or put them right.

Special Investigation

The Ombudsman published a report in July 2023 about the landlord following a special wider investigation. It found multiple systemic failings that were impacting its residents. These included that the landlord was failing to take effective ownership and management of repairs leading to delays and poorly communicating with residents. This Service also found issues with its record keeping and a repeat failure to offer compensation despite clear evidence of service failings that caused detriment. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its handling of repairs, complaints and how it kept records. The failings identified by this complaint largely mirror those identified by the special investigation that are part of the ongoing improvement work ordered, for which this Service remains in liaison with the landlord. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, we have therefore not made any similar orders.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1170 broken down as:
  1. £920 for distress and inconvenience that the resident likely incurred as a result of the further delays to remedial repairs for damp and mould.
  2. £175 for the distress and inconvenience that the resident likely incurred as a result of the landlord’s delays to repair the toilet and lights.
  3. £75 for the time and trouble that the resident likely incurred as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
2. Book in an appointment with the resident to carry out a thorough inspection of rising damp in the chimney in the bedroom and in the living room.
Within 4 weeks of the inspection, if any rising damp has been identified, the landlord is ordered to make an appointment with the resident to complete the necessary remedial repairs to resolve the issue.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reimbursing the resident for her costs incurred in dealing with the damp and mould, such as the specialist damp paint and costs in purchasing and running a dehumidifier. Alternatively, the landlord may want to consider providing the resident with details on how to make a claim on its insurance for these costs.