London & Quadrant Housing Trust — case 202445227

Decision Case ID 202445227 Decision type Investigation Landlord London & Quadrant Housing Trust Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 29 January 2026 Background The resident has lived in the property since September 2022. She lives with her 2 adult children. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has physical and mental health conditions. This includes asthma and conditions which affect her mobility. The resident’s son has a health condition which means he needs to bathe regularly.

The landlord is aware of the household’s vulnerabilities. The resident complained that the landlord had not completed repairs to her wet room, including the shower, shower screen, flooring, and back panel. She also said the landlord had not dealt with the damp and mould in the wet room. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Repairs to the wet room. Reports of damp and mould in the wet room. Associated complaint. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the: Repairs to the wet room.

Report of damp and mould in the wet room. There was service failure by the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons In summary, we found the landlord: Repairs to wet room Had adjusted its repair timescales for non-emergency repairs due to the household’s vulnerabilities. Attended to shower repairs in December 2024, February 2025, and July 2025 within its repair timescales. Took too long to resolve the drainage issue.

Unreasonably delayed in completing agreed repairs to the wet room. Damp and mould Unreasonably delayed in raising the repair to replace the radiator. Failed to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould in June 2025 and July 2025. Complaint handling Responded to the resident’s complaint at both stages in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales. Included information from another tenancy file in its complaint responses which confused the resident.

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 provided by a manager. 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 26 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,500 made up as follows: £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the wet room. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould in the wet room.

£100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 26 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should contact the resident to discuss the water ingress behind the wet room panels.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 19 May 2025 The resident complained that the landlord had not completed agreed repairs to the wet room. This included renewing the flooring, installing new shower doors, and replacing the shower back panel She also said it had not dealt with the damp and mould in the wet room. This was affecting her health. 20 May 2025 The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It said it was upholding the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s surveying team were in the process of referring the works to the minor works contractor. The contractor would contact the resident to schedule an appointment. 25 June 2025 The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said the wet room had damp and mould. This was affecting her mentally and physically due to her asthma. 30 June 2025 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation. 28 July 2025 The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said there had been an inspection on 15 January 2025 for the resident’s disrepair claim.

The survey had recommended works to the wet room. This included repairs to the shower, investigating the drainage, and replacing the radiator with a larger one. The surveyor did not find any damp and mould at the time of the inspection. The landlord said it had attended to shower repairs in February 2025 and July 2025. It had left the shower in working order. It was awaiting a date for when minor works will investigate the drainage. Its contractors would contact the resident to arrange appointments to replace radiator and the wet room floor.

It did not need to install a shower screen because the current shower curtain was suitable. It said it had paid the resident a total of £8,500 via its insurance for damages and associated costs. The parties had not reached a settlement for the disrepair case. If it considered further compensation was appropriate, it would assess and award this in due course. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to replace the wet room panelling.

She would also like compensation for the delays and distress and inconvenience caused. 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 The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the wet room.

Finding Maladministration What we won’t look at The resident told us the repairs and the landlord’s handling of them had affected hers and the household’s health and wellbeing. 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. The resident has been reporting issues with her wet room since November 2023. In January 2024 she complained to the landlord about these issues. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 21 March 2024. We have not seen any evidence that the resident escalated this earlier complaint to stage 2, or that she was prevented from doing so. The earlier complaint did not complete the landlord’s complaint procedure.

So, we will look at what happened from March 2024 up to the end of July 2025. This is when the current complaint completed the landlord’s complaint procedure. What we will look at On 8 June 2024 the landlord raised a repair to remove the shower screen doors. The notes state the doors were broken and in the way. The landlord marked the repair complete on 3 June 2024, which was before the job was raised. We know the landlord removed the doors because we have seen an internal email, dated 7 July 2025, confirming this.

The email also said the landlord attended to refit the shower screen but there were issues with the resident’s expectations. We do not know what the resident’s expectations were. But this is not a reason not to complete a repair. However the inspection report from January 2025 shows there was a shower curtain rail in place. We do not know when the landlord installed this. On 3 December 2024 the resident reported her shower was not working. The landlord categorises emergency repairs as those which pose an immediate risk to the resident.

This would not fit that criteria. The landlord’s repair policy says it will adjust its service standards where a delay would put the resident at risk because of their disability. The landlord adjusted its service standards because of the resident’s son’s disability. It correctly categorised the repair as an emergency. It marked the repair complete on the same date which was within its 24-hour timescale. Between 13 December 2024 and 30 December 2024 the resident reported issues with shower water not draining away on 3 occasions.

We can see the landlord attended because it raised follow-on works for further investigation. But its records are not clear. For example, the landlord cancelled the repair raised on 13 December 2024. It raised the same repair on 16 December 2024 and marked that complete on 13 December 2024. We therefore cannot be satisfied what it did and when. In any event the issue remained ongoing. Around this time the resident approached a solicitor regarding the condition of her home. On 21 January 2025 there was a surveyor’s inspection for a disrepair case.

The surveyor said the shower itself was fully operational at the time of the inspection. But found the shower was defective due to it not draining correctly. The surveyor recommended the landlord investigate the shower drain and complete remedial works to ensure the correct flow of water. Following the inspection the landlord should have set out to the resident what work it would complete and by when in accordance with its repairs timescale. This did not happen. On 9 February 2025 and 13 February 2025, the landlord raised repairs for the shower drainage.

Its disrepair team raised another repair for the same issue on 27 February 2025. The landlord marked the repairs complete either on the days it raised them, the day after, or, in respect of the repair raised on 13 February 2025, 3 days before the landlord raised the repair. The landlord has not provided job sheets for these repairs. Due to the poor record keeping we cannot be satisfied when it attended, whether that attendance was in line with its policy or what work it completed.

On 10 February 2025 the landlord raised a repair due to the shower not turning on. It logged this as an emergency repair, due to the household’s vulnerability. It attended on the same date, which was within its 24-hour timescale. In its complaint response the landlord said it left the shower in working condition following this visit. We have not seen the landlord’s job sheet for this repair so we don’t know what work it completed or whether it was effective. It raised follow-on works on 26 February 2025, to replace the shower head, under the same job number.

The landlord’s repair policy says it will complete follow-on works at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. It marked the follow-on works complete on 5 March 2025. This was 23 days after the resident reported the issue. We would consider this to be a reasonable timeframe for follow-on works. On 10 May 2025 the resident reported the water was not draining away again. The landlord attended on the same date. We do not know what work it completed because we have not seen the job sheet.

However, its attendance timescale was reasonable. On 13 May 2025 the landlord raised works to renew the flooring in the wet room, install new shower doors, and replace the shower back panel. It referred this work to its surveying team for consideration. The surveying team rejected the referral due to insufficient information. They said the landlord’s maintenance team should attend to complete holding repairs and provide current pictures. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it would contact her to arrange an appointment when the repairs had been allocated to the minor works team.

The resident did not receive any contact. She continued to chase the landlord for updates throughout June 2025 and July 2025. The landlord responded to the resident’s contacts. But it did not make any progress with the repairs during this time. In addition, there was more than one team involved but none of them took ownership of the resident’s case. The landlord had raised the resident’s expectations by telling her it would start the repairs within 2 weeks. Its surveying team rejected the referral and passed the repairs to another department.

This confused the resident and resulted in her feeling more frustrated. On 4 July 2025 the landlord raised a repair for the wet room flooring. The notes state the asbestos contractor had drilled a hole in the flooring when surveying the room in April 2025. This had caused water to penetrate through and there were water stains on the hallway ceiling. The landlord arranged an appointment for 7 July 2025. On 7 July 2025 the resident contacted the landlord because the contractor had not attended.

The landlord explained it had raised the repair to the wrong contractor. It had rebooked to the correct contractor but had not updated the resident. It apologised and issued the resident with a £20 missed appointment voucher. The flooring contractor attended on 8 July 2025 and repaired the floor. The missed appointment inconvenienced the resident because she had been waiting for the contractor. The landlord’s mistake resulted in a delay of one day. It apologised and issued a missed appointment voucher.

We would consider this to be reasonable in the circumstances. On 22 July 2025 the resident reported her shower was not working. The landlord raised this as an emergency repair, which was reasonable. It arranged an all-day appointment. When it attended there was no access. It rearranged the appointment for 23 July 2025. Although we have not seen a job report for this repair, we can see the contractor attended twice on 23 July 2025. When it attended the second time the resident confirmed the contractor had completed the repair at the earlier visit.

In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it left the shower in working order. After stage 2 the landlord replaced the back panel in the wet room in October 2025. It replaced the wet room flooring and shower in December 2025. It also fitted a new shower screen. In summary, the landlord adjusted its repair timescales for non-emergency repairs due to the household’s vulnerabilities. It attended to shower repairs in December 2024, February 2025, and July 2025 within its repair timescales.

However, it took too long to resolve the drainage issue, which was ongoing from at least December 2024 until at least July 2025, when it sent its stage 2 response. It also unreasonably delayed in completing repairs to the wet room, from at least May 2025 until July 2025. It then took the landlord a further 5 months to complete the works after stage 2. The delays left a vulnerable resident with a defective wet room for an unreasonable length of time. The failures in this case lead to a finding of maladministration.

We’ve ordered the landlord to pay £1,000 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This follows our guidance for situations where serious problems went on for a long time and made it hard for the resident to feel comfortable in their home. The resident has asked the landlord to replace all the panelling in the wet room as an outcome to this complaint. We have not seen any evidence to show that the other panelling in the wet room was damaged or that the landlord said it would replace it as part of its complaint response.

Therefore we cannot order the landlord to replace the panelling. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the report of damp and mould in the wet room. Finding Maladministration The independent surveyor did not find any evidence of damp and mould in the wet room in January 2025. He noted the resident told him she cleaned the wet room regularly to keep the damp and mould under control. The inspection noted the radiator in the wet room was small. He recommended the landlord consider replacing it with a bigger one.

On 26 February 2025 the landlord raised a job to check the radiator in the wet room. The landlord marked the repair complete on 12 March 2025. We have not seen the job sheet for this repair. Therefore we do not know what the contractor did at this visit. However, the attendance was within the landlord’s 20 calendar day timescale for day-to-day repairs. On 9 April 2025 the landlord ordered an asbestos report before starting works in the wet room. The contractor completed the inspection on 23 April 2025.

It was reasonable that the landlord should check for the presence of asbestos. However, it then took it 3 months (from 23 April 2025 – 20 July 2025) to raise the job to replace the radiators. This was too long. Between 30 June 2025 and 21 July 2025 the resident told the landlord there was damp and mould in the wet room on at least 3 occasions. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will arrange a visit within 20 working days of a report to understand the scale of the problem.

The policy also says it will consider a range of interventions to tackle damp and mould. This may include mould washes. The landlord did not take any steps to investigate the damp and mould following the residents reports. Instead it chose to rely on information from the inspection in January 2025, which was 6 months before. This was not a reasonable response. This was especially concerning as the resident had asthma, which the landlord was aware of. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said its contractor would attend to replace the radiator.

The landlord attempted an appointment on 28 August 2025 but there was no access. It rearranged the appointment for 6 October 2025. The contractor attended but it is not clear whether the work went ahead on this date or not. The resident has confirmed the landlord has replaced the radiator. In summary, the landlord delayed in raising the repair to replace the radiator. It then took it a further 2 ½ months to complete the repair after stage 2. It failed to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould in June 2025 and July 2025.

This leads to a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay £400 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The resident has told us that water is still getting behind the panelling in the wet room, which she says is causing damp to the hallway wall. This issue was not part of this complaint. We do not know if the resident has reported this to the landlord or not. We have therefore recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss this with her.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are: The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales. The landlord’s acknowledgement and time of responses at both stages were consistent with its policy and the Code.

The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was poor. It included large sections of text which it had copied and pasted from the resident’s complaint. The landlord had not changed the context of the text. In addition, it included information about payment of damages which was from another tenancy file. This confused the resident. This demonstrates poor complaint record keeping. It also shows the landlord did not conduct a thorough investigation into the resident’s complaint. Due to the above we have made a finding of service failure.

We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. Learning The landlord failed to recognise any learning from the resident’s complaint. It should complete a review of this case to identify what went wrong and what it needs to do to prevent similar failures occurring in the future and to improve its overall service to residents. The landlord has a process by which one team raises repairs and another team can and in this case rejects the repairs.

This creates expectations for the resident that are then unfulfilled. It also means that the landlord mechanisms for raising and executing repairs are inefficient. The landlord should consider why the repairs raised in this case was in some instances rejected and what it can do to ensure a more efficient process where repairs that are raised will be authorised. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord included information in the complaint responses from another tenancy file.

The resident’s complaint file also included information regarding complaints which pre-dated her tenancy. The landlord should consider if there is a need for training for staff regarding this. The landlord has not provided evidence of all inspection reports or completed works. Some of its repair records are unclear and do not detail the nature or outcome of the works completed. At times, this has affected our ability to assess its actions. Communication We expect landlords to keep in regular contact with residents and provide regular updates on the progress of repairs.

In this case, the resident had to repeatedly chase it for updates. The landlord should explore ways to maintain consistent contact with residents while repairs are ongoing.