London & Quadrant Housing Trust — case 202425018

Decision Case ID 202425018 Decision type Investigation Landlord London & Quadrant Housing Trust Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 24 December 2025 Background In September 2024 the resident moved into the property and reported several repairs, including black mould throughout. She said the mould affected her health, she could not live there, and she wanted a full rent refund. The landlord completed some repairs, but the resident says that the mould and damp remained.

The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. What the complaint is about The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The property condition. Damp and mould. The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We found: Reasonable redress with the landlords handling of the property condition. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. No maladministration in the landlords handling of the associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons We found that the landlord: Admitted a failure with regards considering the resident’s vulnerabilities in relation to repairs and offered £310 compensation, this was reasonable. Failed to investigate the cause of the damp and mould. Failed to take timely action on the damp and mould. Did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding the damp and mould. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 05 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £600 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. This must be paid directly to the resident, and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 05 February 2026 3 Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection.

It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. An independent and suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the on-going mould issue within the property Inspects the windows for defects The surveyor must identify the source of the damp and mould and produce a written report with photographs The survey must include: The most likely cause of the damp and mould An assessment of the windows A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue The likely timescales to commence and complete the work No later than 12 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations The landlord should pay the resident £310 as offered within the stage 1 and 2 internal complaints process. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 9 September 2024 The resident signed the tenancy and, on the 16 September 2024, she moved into the property. 26 September 2024 The resident raised a complaint, she said she had reported several repairs, including black mould throughout the property. She said the mould affected her health, she could not live there, and she wanted a full rent refund.

3 October 2024 The landlord provided its complaint response and said: on 16 September 2024, it opened a damp and mould case and assigned it to the healthy homes team, it also ordered a mould wash to treat the affected area on 24 September 2024, it raised further repairs and said the maintenance supervisor would arrange a meeting with the resident about her concerns it carried out a successful property viewing, the resident took pictures, and no further issues or concerns were raised at the time it would not consider a rent reimbursement just because there were outstanding repairs it offered £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing to recognise the impact of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

8 November 2024 The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 because damp and mould remained in the property. 5 December 2024 The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response and said: following an inspection, it had raised and completed all repairs, including a mould wash it declined the resident’s request for a property inspection because a mould wash was carried out in October 2024 the area surveyor spoke with the resident about the damp and mould issues and said a humidistat fan would be fitted in the bathroom along with another mould wash the contractor would arrange an appointment to repair the back door it declined the resident’s request to replace flooring and paint walls because these are not the landlord’s responsibility it acknowledged and apologised that communication could have been better and complaint handling could have been more effective it confirmed that the resident has Service Adjustment Needs (SANS) flagged on her account it offered £160 compensation for time and effort in raising the complaint and for distress and inconvenience.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate because the damp and mould were not resolved. She said the poor living conditions affected her health and she could not continue to live there. She wanted the landlord to complete the required works and provide compensation for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint Resident’s complaint regarding the property condition Finding Reasonable redress What we did not investigate The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about excess cold from gaps to windows or the condition of communal areas. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues. What we did investigate The resident reported several repairs to the landlord on the day she moved in and said she was unhappy the repairs had not been completed while the property was empty. The landlord’s voids standard commits to letting homes that are clean, safe, ready to occupy, and meet the Decent Homes Standard.

The landlord said it completed a successful viewing with the resident, and evidence shows the post-void inspection record confirmed there were no repairs outstanding and the property met the required standard. During the void process, the landlord is expected to review the condition of the property to ensure a resident can reasonably live there without extensive additional work. When the tenancy starts, if the resident raises concerns or reports repairs, the landlord is expected to address them in accordance with its repair timeframes.

The resident raised numerous repairs, and the landlord’s evidence shows it completed the repairs it was responsible for in accordance with its repairs policy. Further, the resident reported having no hot water. The landlord raised an order and applied a 5-day priority in line with its responsive repair timescales. After the resident advised the landlord that she had vulnerabilities, the landlord considered this, adjusted the priority, and completed the repair within 2 days of the resident reporting the issue.

This was a reasonable response and showed the landlord acted in line with its vulnerable person policy. The landlord also added the appropriate vulnerability flag to the resident’s account for future repairs. The resident raised concerns about the decorative condition of the property when she moved in. She said there was pen marks on doors, oil marks on the floor and paint splatter throughout. The landlord’s lettable standard and tenancy agreement state that internal decoration is the incoming tenant’s responsibility, but that it will ensure the property is clean and free from hazards.

It was appropriate of the landlord to provide this information to the resident. On 26 September 2024, the resident reported that the shower pole had come off the wall and had struck her. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord apologised and advised the resident to contact its insurers to investigate the matter. This was a reasonable response because the insurer would determine liability for the accident. Overall, with the evidence available, it cannot be concluded that the landlord failed to complete necessary repairs or that it let the property in breach of its void standard.

However, it is acknowledged that the numerous repairs of which the resident experienced soon after the tenancy began would reasonably cause distress, frustration, upset, and upheaval. The landlord’s complaint responses showed it acknowledged a failing in recognising the impact of the resident’s vulnerabilities and offered £310 compensation. Where there are admitted failings, as in this case, it is our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.

The landlord’s apologies and compensation showed a good application of our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. It acknowledged that its handling of the resident’s complaint fell below its expected standards and offered appropriate redress. A finding of reasonable redress is therefore appropriate, and we recommend the landlord pay the £310 compensation offered within its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. Complaint Landlord’s handling of damp and mould Finding Maladministration What we did not investigate The resident explained that the damp and mould has significantly affected her asthma.

It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. What we did investigate The resident reported mould to the landlord on the 16 September 2024, she said mould was found on all walls around the windows, on window frames and seals.

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior, including walls, roofs, windows, and external doors. This is also detailed within its repair policy. Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard says a landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould is listed as a potential category 1 hazard. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under this legislation.

Within 4 days, the landlord referred the resident to its healthy living team. The team contacted the resident and requested further information to assess the damp. The landlord also arranged a visit from its maintenance supervisor, who confirmed a mould wash was needed. On 17 October 2024 the contractor completed the mould wash and confirmed that it had cleaned and disinfected all affected areas. This action was reasonable and was in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.

Despite the mould wash, on 5 November 2024 the resident reported that mould remained. She said it was ingrained in the window frames and requested replacement. The landlord responded and said it would check if the windows were due for renewal, but it did not provide an update. The resident contacted the landlord a further 2 times. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity for the landlord to engage further with the resident, understand her frustrations, and work towards a resolution.

In the absence of any information regarding the condition of the windows, an order has been made for the windows to be inspected. The resident continued reporting damp and mould and chased updates on 26 November and 2 December 2024. On 5 December 2024 the landlord refused an inspection, stating it had completed a mould wash in October 2024, and the surveyor had spoken to her by phone. This refusal was unreasonable because the resident remained concerned about her health and reported no improvement.

It likely caused frustration and suggested the landlord did not take the matter seriously. After a phone call, the surveyor raised a works order for a humidistat fan and recommended another mould wash. Two mould washes so close together should have prompted the landlord to investigate, as noted in its internal emails on 29 November 2024. The landlord did not consider the resident’s vulnerability, her concerns, or the repeated reports that the situation had not improved. This was unreasonable.

The landlord should have ensured that the mould was managed in line with its policy. On 16 January 2025, the resident reported that mould remained in the property. The landlord confirmed that the fan was fitted on 21 January 2025. Another mould wash was completed on 29 March 2025. However, there was still no confirmation that a damp and mould inspection had taken place. It is evident that the landlord was informed that the property conditions had an adverse effect on the resident and that she has suffered with respiratory illnesses and had an asthma attack since she moved into the property.

There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or addressed these concerns in line with its statement on supporting vulnerable residents. Nor did it risk assess the situation, this was inappropriate and was detrimental to the landlord tenant relationship. The resident said she was told by neighbours that the property had damp issues before she moved in. While this does not confirm damp and mould, she has continued to report the matter throughout her tenancy. Given the number of mould washes and the length of time she has complained, an order has been made for the landlord to instruct a surveyor to complete a full damp and mould inspection.

Overall, the landlord handled the resident’s complaint regarding damp and mould inappropriately. The landlord’s evidence does not indicate that it has investigated the resident’s concerns regarding damp and mould sufficiently or that any further action was taken other than mould washes, despite her ongoing reports. The delay investigating the situation was unreasonable. Further, despite having a damp policy to manage damp and mould complaints at its disposal, it did not consider applying the principles in this case and it failed to consider the vulnerabilities of the resident.

The failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould amount to maladministration. Our remedies guidance suggests that compensation is appropriate where there has been a failure, which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge it. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we find that the landlord should apologise and pay the resident a total of £600 compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.

This is in line with the remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for when such failures adversely affected the resident. Complaint The associated complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord provided complaint responses which complied with the requirements of the Code. It responded to the complaint points the resident raised and it provided a response within the appropriate timescales. It also informed the resident she could bring her complaint to this service if she remained unhappy with its response.

As such we consider there is no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Learning The landlord produced a report setting out changes it has put in place, which includes a 7-year plan to ensure its properties are free of disrepair, damp, and mould. It is rolling out proactive inspections and acting on Healthy Homes assessments. There is evidence of the landlord making these changes, which is positive. Knowledge information management (record keeping) When handling the resident’s complaint regarding damp and mould, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or addressed the resident’s concerns in line with its statement on supporting vulnerable residents.

Communication The landlord provided limited evidence of communications with the resident, and we identified failings because it did not communicate proactively. This related to providing information about the repairs and what action was being taken.