From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202203278)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203278

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 August 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the heating and hot water system at the resident’s property.
    2. Reports of leaks and associated repairs.
    3. Repairs to damp, electrics, plaster cracks, and make good works.
    4. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. The resident has reported experiencing recurring issues with the property’s solar heating and hot water system over many years. This resulted in repeated losses of heating and hot water, sometimes lasting for extended periods.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord in April 2022 as she was experiencing a loss of heating and hot water for an extended period of time. However, we have not received a copy of this complaint, so we cannot confirm the exact details or the specific date the resident made it.
  4. On 31 April 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. In its response, the landlord apologised for the delays the resident experienced. It said that it had spoken directly with the contractors regarding the 7 appointments that had been raised between February and April 2022 relating to the loss of heating and hot water. The landlord acknowledged that the delays were “unacceptable” and offered compensation. It confirmed that the services had been restored for heating and hot water on 28 April 2022.
  5. On 8 May 2022, the resident reported an uncontainable internal leak. The landlord raised a repair order the same day, but it has not provided any clear evidence that any substantial action was taken until September 2022. It identified that the source was a leaking wash-hand basin but is unclear when this was. Initially, the landlord informed the resident on 17 October 2022 that repairs to the basin were her responsibility. However, after the resident disputed this, the landlord concluded on 24 November 2022 that it was responsible for the repairs.
  6. Historical records from 2020 and 2021 relate to rainwater entering through external vents linked to the solar heating system. In May 2022, the resident reported that this issue remained unresolved and was causing ongoing water ingress during rainfall. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on this until it conducted an initial roof inspection in October 2022.
  7. On 11 December 2022, the resident contacted this Service. She reported being without heating and hot water, described damp in the kitchen, a hole in the ceiling caused by water ingress, and electrical issues resulting in blown downstairs lights. She said the property was “freezing”.
  8. On 26 April 2023, the resident contacted this Service again. She explained she had already made several complaints to the landlord and contacted her local MP, but she was still experiencing significant repair problems.
  9. On 5 May 2023, this Service formally raised a complaint with the landlord on behalf of the resident. The complaint specifically included:
    1. A lack of heating and radiators.
    2. An internal leak and a hole in the ceiling, damp conditions in the kitchen, and cracks appearing in the internal walls.
    3. Persistent electrical issues affecting the downstairs lighting.
    4. Water ingress.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 31 May 2023, in which it:
    1. Apologised for prolonged heating and hot water issues, stating it first became aware of them on 10 March 2023. It confirmed a replacement system was scheduled for 5 June 2023.
    2. Confirmed that additional repairs, including removing water-damaged flooring, redundant vents, completing decorative ‘make-good’ works, and renewing upstairs flooring, would occur alongside the system replacement in June 2023.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 response included a compensation offer of:
    1. £182 for heating loss (covering 91 days from 10 March to 9 June 2023, calculated at £10 for the first five days and £2 per day thereafter).
    2. £20 for complaint handling.
    3. £80 for inconvenience (£20 per month for 4 months).
    4. £80 for distress (£20 per month for 4 months).
    5. Total: £362.
  12. On 6 June 2023, the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She disputed the landlord’s assertion that it only became aware of heating and hot water issues in March 2023. She explained she had reported these problems repeatedly over several years.
  13. The heating system was replaced in June 2023.
  14. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 January 2024, in which it:
    1. Apologised for delays in responding and acknowledged their impact on the resident.
    2. Stated ‘most repairs’ had been completed, including replacing the solar system, renewing flooring, and removing redundant vents.
    3. Accepted ongoing roof repairs had delayed internal decorating works.
    4. Explained that roof repairs were prioritised, but said works could only be completed during weekdays. It acknowledged the resident’s difficulty providing weekday access, as she had exhausted her annual leave entitlement due to previous appointments.

The landlord increased its compensation offer in its stage 2 response to:

  1. £180 for distress relating to ongoing repairs.
  2. £180 for the inconvenience caused by ongoing repairs.
  3. £180 for time and effort spent pursuing the complaint.
  4. £180 for complaint handling delays.
  5. £100 for service failures due to delays.
  6. Total: £820.

Events after the landlord’s final response to the complaint

  1. On 19 February 2024, the resident escalated the complaint to this Service for formal investigation. She expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s final response and compensation, stating that longstanding issues remained unresolved. She felt the landlord had not adequately recognised the significant distress and inconvenience she experienced.
  2. In June 2025, the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the landlord had completed roof repairs and removed scaffolding that month. Despite this, she reported in July 2025 that the further water ingress which occurred while the repairs were delayed had damaged internal decorations which had been completed on 2 previous occasions before the roof was fully repaired. At the time of this investigation, the decoration works remain unresolved.
  3. In July 2025, we requested an update from the landlord on the status of several internal repairs and decorative work, including plastering, decorating, and electrical repairs. In August 2025, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that a repair order had been raised for the outstanding works. However, the resident has reported that she had not been given a completion date for the necessary repair work.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This report focuses on the key events and evidence which we consider affect the outcome of the complaint. It does not list every repair order and communication, although we have considered all the information both sides have provided. The findings are based on the evidence available at the time of our investigation.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about historic issues relating to her initial tenancy, which started in 2009, including the type of tenancy, the provision of a gas safety certificate when there was no gas, disruption during solar heating system installation several years ago, and a lack of information on the use of the solar heating system. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. As these matters were not brought to the landlord’s attention within 12 months of arising, we have not included them in our investigation.
  3. In April 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response after the resident was without heating and hot water for over 71 days, acknowledging failings and offering compensation. The landlord confirmed the resident did not escalate the matter to stage 2 of its process. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as this complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint process, we have not investigated these events, and they are referenced in the background of this report for contextual purposes only.
  4. The landlord has recorded the resident as vulnerable. However, during this investigation, the resident told the Ombudsman that she does not consider herself to be vulnerable in a way that is materially relevant to the complaint issues. Therefore, we have not considered the resident’s vulnerability when assessing the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says emergency repairs should be addressed within 24 hours, or within 4 hours when reported during out-of-hours. Routine repairs are expected to be completed within 25 calendar days.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms its responsibility for the repairs and ongoing maintenance of the heating system, structure of the building and electrics.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt, and that it operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. The response times reflect the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out this Service’s expectations of complaint handling practices. In line with the Code, stage 1 responses must be issued within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days.

Heating and hot water

  1. The Decent Homes Standard (2006) requires landlords to ensure homes are warm, safe, and free from hazards such as excess cold.
  2. On 8 December 2022, the landlord recorded a priority repair after the resident lost all heating and hot water. The job was marked complete on the same day, but the landlord has provided no details of the work completed.
  3. However, there is no evidence that the resident told the landlord of the ongoing loss of heating after completing the repair. Although she had told the Ombudsman about this on 11 December 2022. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to believe the repair had been successful. Therefore, it was not responsible for the loss of heating until it was made aware that the issue was ongoing in March 2023.
  4. The resident raised the issue again with this Service on 24 February 2023, confirming she remained without heating and hot water. We have seen no evidence that shows this was reported to the landlord at the time. She reported using fan heaters and an immersion heater. She also said that a contractor attended on this day but was unfamiliar with the heating system. The landlord provided no corresponding repair records, which has prevented a full assessment of this visit.
  5. On 10 March 2023, the landlord raised a new repair stating the solar heating system was “broken.” The job was marked complete on 12 March 2023, but the landlord has not provided any details of the repair. The landlord inspected the heating system a few days later. This response was appropriate, reflecting the landlord’s duty to consider replacement when repeated repairs have proven ineffective.
  6. After the heating failure, the landlord should have provided temporary heating to the resident. The landlord supplied portable heaters in April 2023, but the landlord did not record reasons for this delay. While the resident confirmed to us that she had fan heaters before 10 March 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord knew this at the time. The landlord’s failure to show that it considered alternative heating sources was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s distress. Throughout this period, the resident repeatedly requested updates. Communication from the landlord was limited and reactive, falling short of reasonable expectations. A more proactive approach could have helped reduce the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident.
  7. In May 2023, the landlord sought clarity from its surveyor and the resident about how long heating issues had persisted. The surveyor mentioned ongoing problems dating back to 2012 but could not confirm the exact duration of service loss. This lack of clarity highlights weaknesses in the landlord’s record-keeping. This issue aligns with findings in the Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management’ report, highlighting how poor record-keeping can escalate routine service matters. Similarly, the ‘Spotlight on Heating, Hot Water and Energy’ report identified inadequate documentation and oversight of contractors as frequent causes of unresolved heating problems. Complaint handling staff must have access to comprehensive repair records to be able to respond to complaints effectively. We recommend that the landlord improves its record keeping processes to ensure this is the case for its staff.
  8. The resident said that it had been over a year, and she had been relying on expensive substitutions for heat and hot water. She requested compensation for increased electricity usage due to the prolonged issues with her system. In response, the landlord requested evidence of increased usage. This was appropriate as per its complaints policy. The resident said she had changed utility providers and could not provide the documents requested. Given this situation, the landlord’s decision not to reimburse utility costs at that time was reasonable. The resident may be able to ask her previous provider if it still has records of her energy usage. The landlord should reconsider the resident’s request, if she is now able to provide the requested evidence.
  9. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £182 for the loss of heating between March and June 2023. It also offered compensation for distress and inconvenience for multiple issues. It did not provide a breakdown of its compensation. We have allocated £40 of the total award to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to the lack of heating and hot water. When landlords acknowledge faults and offer redress, the Ombudsman assesses if the redress offered is fair using our dispute resolution principles:
    1. Be fair.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  10. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. We have identified delays in resolving the issue, offering temporary heating provisions and limited communication with the resident.
  11. Although the landlord offered compensation, it does not fully account for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.  Our remedies guidance (which is published on our website) sets out that for findings of maladministration, we may make an order of compensation between £100 and £600 to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors, but there may be no permanent impact from the failures. In this case the resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period but there was no permanent impact as the heating system was ultimately replaced.
  12. We order the landlord to pay the resident a further £160 compensation for distress and inconvenience, in addition to the compensation it already offered, taking the total compensation for the heating and hot water to £200.
  13. The resident has requested a rent rebate for the overall issues she has experienced with her property. The Ombudsman would consider a rent rebate for instances where part of or all of a property becomes uninhabitable. A property is considered uninhabitable if it is unsafe to be in or lacks essential facilities, such as heating during colder months, without temporary alternatives.
  14. In this case, although the resident experienced a loss of heating, the evidence does not show that the resident made the landlord aware of any loss of services during colder months. When it became aware of the loss of services, it did provide temporary heaters, though it was delayed in doing so. The evidence does not show that the property met the threshold for being uninhabitable. For this reason, the Ombudsman does not consider a rent rebate appropriate. However, we acknowledge the impact that the repair issues had on the resident.

Internal leak

  1. The resident first reported an uncontainable leak on 8 May 2022. The landlord raised a repair order and completed it the same day. This initial response was prompt and consistent with its repairs policy which says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.
  2. On 9 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again. She explained that water damage to her kitchen ceiling had worsened. She also raised concerns about structural safety. Given the seriousness of her report, the landlord should have treated it as an emergency and visited the property to inspect the damage within 24 hours. However, there is no record that it did. This was a significant failure by the landlord to meet its repair responsibilities and ensure the resident’s home remained safe.
  3. Within 2 days, the landlord appropriately arranged for a leak trace survey to identify the cause. However, the landlord has provided no records about what was found during this visit or what follow-up action was planned. Without these details, the resident was left uncertain and unsupported, which was a failing.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises that resolving internal leaks can sometimes involve multiple visits and specialists, and some delay may be unavoidable. However, landlords must communicate clearly and regularly to keep residents informed. In this case, after the survey on 11 May 2022, the resident heard nothing more from the landlord until she asked for updates on 4 July 2022. The lack of proactive communication was poor service, causing avoidable frustration.
  5. Despite the severity of the resident’s reports, no substantial repairs took place until October 2022, 5 months after the leak was first reported. This delay significantly exceeded the landlord’s repair timescales for routine repairs. It was eventually confirmed that the leak originated from the basin in the bathroom, causing damage to the kitchen ceiling below. However, the landlord has provided no clear records confirming when it identified this as the source of the leak.
  6. On 14 October 2022, the landlord raised another repair order. By this point, the resident had temporarily contained the leak using a towel. This job was completed on 17 October 2022, 162 days after the first order was raised. During the visit, the contractor told the resident that future repairs would be her responsibility. This was based on the understanding that she had installed the basin herself. The resident disputed this, saying the landlord installed it several years earlier. The landlord later accepted responsibility for the repairs, but by that time, the resident had paid for the repair herself via a private contractor. It was reasonable for the resident to do this, given the delays, and the landlord should reimburse her for this cost, subject to her providing proof of what she paid.
  7. Landlords must complete repairs that fall under their legal responsibilities. Residents should not have to accept the cost of repairs caused by service failures. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review and improve its repair and installation records to avoid similar disputes and delays in the future.
  8. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord referred to the resident’s report of a “hole in the ceiling”. However, it grouped this issue with unrelated repairs and proposed repairs to take place in June 2023. It offered £160 in compensation for distress and inconvenience but provided no breakdown showing how much was specifically relating to the leak. We have allocated £40 of the total award to the leak.
  9. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the leak represents maladministration. It failed to address the resident’s safety concerns promptly, clarify repair responsibilities in a reasonable period, or communicate effectively. This resulted in significant delays, inconvenience, and unnecessary expense for the resident. In line with our remedies guidance, as set out above, we order the landlord to pay an additional £160 compensation for distress and inconvenience due to its delays and poor communication, in addition to the compensation it already offered. This brings the total compensation for the leak to £200.

Water ingress and associated repairs

  1. The resident first reported water entering through air vents linked to the solar heating and hot water system in May 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord acted until it conducted an initial inspection in October 2022. This 7-month delay significantly exceeds reasonable response times for repairs of this nature and represents a service failure. The records show that the inspection initially did not go ahead due to ‘no access’ on 7 October 2022 and was rescheduled for 24 October 2022. It is unclear if this went ahead.
  2. The subsequent 8-month wait to remove the vents, completed as part of a solar system replacement, added to the delay.
  3. While the complexity of the solar system replacement explains some of the delay in removing the vents, the landlord did not show that it considered temporary solutions to limit internal damage in the meantime. This meant that there was ongoing deterioration of the property and caused the resident avoidable distress.
  4. Following the solar system’s replacement in June 2023, further roof repairs were still necessary to fully resolve the water ingress issue. The landlord confirmed this requirement in July 2023. However, despite the resident requesting updates in September and October 2023, roof repairs were not scheduled until November 2023. This further delay highlights poor communication and coordination by the landlord. Additionally, it did not explain the lengthy gap between removing the vents and starting roof repairs.
  5. The repairs scheduled for November 2023 did not go ahead as expected. The resident reported that operatives said a different team needed to complete the works, while the landlord’s surveyor stated the delay was due to adverse weather. Where there is a disputed version of events, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine what did or did not happen. The delays may have been unavoidable, but the landlord was expected to clearly communicate the reasons for any delays to the repairs, and it does not appear that it did so. This was a further failing which would have added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  6. On 9 January 2024, the landlord raised urgent repair orders, explicitly noting the home was in “severe disrepair internally”. However, the landlord cancelled these orders soon after, having raised them incorrectly. This error was only identified on 18 January 2024 after complaint-handling staff queried the status. This caused additional delays and inconvenience for the resident. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord provide training to staff involved in raising repairs. Ensuring staff are fully trained to raise repair orders accurately would help prevent similar future errors.
  7. To progress repairs, the landlord offered the resident short-notice weekday appointments. The resident declined these, as she had already exhausted her annual leave due to having to take time off work for other ongoing repairs. She requested Friday or weekend appointments instead. The landlord explored alternative solutions, including arranging the works across three consecutive Fridays. However, the works required consecutive weekday access, so this was not feasible. The landlord’s efforts to accommodate the resident’s availability were reasonable and demonstrated consideration of her circumstances.
  8. Landlords do not have to offer weekend appointments, as contractors may not operate at those times. Some repair works also need consecutive weekdays to ensure completion. The landlord’s suggestion that the resident arrange a friend or family member to provide access was appropriate, though the Ombudsman recognises this may not be possible for all residents.
  9. The Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence to fully assess the landlord’s actions between January and June 2024, when a subcontractor was appointed. However, the extended repair timeline suggests that earlier landlord intervention may have reduced overall delays. The roof repairs were completed in June 2025, but the resident has reported that the internal repairs needed to the decor as a result of the leak remain incomplete. The landlord should now complete the decoration works.
  10. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered £80 for distress and £80 for inconvenience but provided no breakdown. We have allocated £40 of the total award to the water ingress and roof repairs. In its stage 2 response, the landlord increased the offer to £460 for distress, inconvenience, and service failure delays.
  11. The Ombudsman does not award compensation for annual leave, time off work, or loss of earnings, as residents are expected to facilitate access for repairs. However, compensation is appropriate where significant distress or disruption occurs, including where residents have to take extra time off work to attend unnecessary appointments. Although the landlord acknowledged some fault and offered compensation, the repairs remained incomplete 18 months after its stage 2 response. The landlord’s ongoing delays and lack of resolution were unreasonable and contributed significantly to the resident’s continued distress.
  12. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs due to prolonged delays, poor communication, and administrative errors. To address this, we order the landlord to carry out a full inspection of the property within 4 weeks of this report. It must identify all outstanding repairs, clearly documenting these in a comprehensive schedule of works shared with the resident and this Service.
  13. Our remedies guidance sets out that orders between £600 and £1,000 may be appropriate to put things right where there was a failure by the landlord which had a significant, potentially long-term impact on the resident. Considering this, we have determined a further £300 compensation must also be paid in addition to the increased offer made at stage 2, reflecting the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused. This increases the total compensation awarded the water ingress and roof repairs to £800.

Repairs to damp, electrics, plaster cracks, and make good works

  1. The resident reported multiple internal repairs to the landlord, specifically relating to faulty electrics causing most of her downstairs lights to fuse, as well as damp and plaster crack repairs. The evidence provided to this Service lacks completion details. It does not give a clear audit trail of the landlord’s responses to the reports.
  2. The resident has told this Service that faulty downstairs electrics and internal plaster cracks in her property have not been resolved despite reporting them to the landlord. The landlord’s evidence shows that it raised repair orders relating to electrical issues on 3 November 2022. At the same time, the landlord was aware that the resident was experiencing both internal leaks and water ingress. Despite the potential safety implications, the landlord left this job open for 119 days, marking it as completed on 2 February 2023. This significantly exceeded the landlord’s repair timescales for routine repairs, and the landlord has not explained the reasons for the delay, so we can only conclude it was unreasonable. The delayed response may have caused the resident to feel that the landlord did not take the issue seriously and further added to her distress. In the context of those hazards, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out an electrical safety inspection to ensure that the issues were not being caused by water ingress. Its failure to do so suggests that it did not appropriately assess or manage the potential risks.
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that required works to the electrics would be completed in June 2023, along with other repairs. No completion details have been provided. In July 2025, the resident told this Service that the issue was never resolved, and she continues to experience problems with her downstairs lights. This is not acceptable. The landlord now needs to inspect the lights and carry out appropriate repairs to them.
  4. On 2 September 2022, the resident raised plaster damage across multiple rooms, but the landlord closed the job on the same day, stating, “no action”. It is unclear why this was the outcome. In November 2022, the resident reported that there were multiple cracks visible on walls and ceilings. However, the landlord cancelled this, and the landlord has not explained why this was cancelled.
  5. On 13 March 2023, the landlord raised a new repair order for a complete survey to be conducted in advance of replastering. This order instructed that samples be taken from specific areas of the property, indicating that the landlord had, by this stage, acknowledged the need for more thorough investigation. However, the job was later recorded as “no access” on 29 August 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord made reasonable attempts to arrange alternative access, nor has it demonstrated that the survey was ever rescheduled. The Ombudsman accepts that this would have caused further delays, prolonging the resident’s distress and frustrations.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that all internal make good works would be completed while the system replacement was being done at the beginning of June 2023. We have allocated £40 of the total £160 distress and inconvenience compensation offer to the internal repairs, including the electrical issues. On 22 June 2023, the resident said that she had used 3 weeks of annual leave, there was dust everywhere, and the flooring had not been completed, which meant that her home was in a state of disarray. It is reasonable that the resident felt frustrated by the ongoing disruption to her home.
  7. The repair records show that the remedial works were completed on 11 July 2023. This included replacing damaged floor, removing redundant vents, and redecorating where required.
  8. The resident has informed us that the internal repairs were not fully completed. Specifically, the areas where vents were removed were never repainted, and where damage occurred during the surveys conducted prior to the system replacement. Additionally, the landlord’s records do not indicate that these repairs were completed.
  9. The resident also reported damp in the kitchen on 12 May 2022, and the landlord carried out repairs a few days later. The resident raised the damp in the kitchen again on 3 February 2023, and the repair was completed on 17 February 2023. These response times were appropriate, but there are no details of what work the landlord carried out. However, the resident has told this Service that the damp was addressed, and she had no further issues. Therefore, the landlord’s actions were appropriate as it responded promptly when she reported the problem.
  10. Landlords are expected to provide evidence that they have fulfilled their repair responsibilities. In the absence of evidence, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that repairs were completed, particularly if the resident disputes these. The information the landlord provided does not provide the Ombudsman with a clear audit trail or timeline. This further highlights issues in the landlord’s record keeping.
  11. The Ombudsman has determined that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the various repairs. The landlord is required to assess the outstanding work related to the plaster, damp issues, and the necessary make good works, which must be included in the overall schedule of works that we have ordered above. Additionally, the landlord is ordered to pay £110 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing these specific repairs. This amount is in addition to the £40 offered at stage 1, which we have allocated to these issues, bringing the total compensation for these issues to £150.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 May 2022 stating she wished to make “another formal complaint”. In the email, she raised historic issues as well as the ongoing internal leak. There is no evidence showing that the landlord responded to this. This is a failing which significantly delayed the resident from getting a response to her concerns.
  2. In May 2023, this Service made a complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf as she continued to report issues. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 May 2023, 7 days outside the 10-working-day period set out in its complaints policy. It offered £20 to recognise the delay. Although late, the compensation was appropriate for the delay in its response, as this delay would not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.
  3. The landlord’s statement in its complaint response that it became aware of heating issues only in March 2023 caused frustration to the resident, who had reported concerns earlier. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review how it presents responses, especially in cases involving longstanding issues, to ensure accurate recognition of past problems.
  4. On 6 June 2023, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 following continued dissatisfaction. The resident raised concerns about unresolved rent arrears, low compensation, and increased utility costs. She also questioned how long the landlord had been aware of the heating and hot water issues.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 January 2025, more than 7 months after escalation. The resident and the Ombudsman had been chasing a response during this time. The landlord did not explain the delay. This falls significantly outside the complaint handling period and does not align with the Complaint Handling Code. The delays caused the resident inconvenience as she had to repeatedly chase the landlord and involve this Service to do so on her behalf. Consequently, this meant that the resident was waiting for an outcome for a prolonged period, which also delayed her from being able to progress her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial redress when it does not meet required standards. In its stage 2 response, it offered £180 for the delayed response and a further £180 for the resident’s time and effort. It also included an apology. The total of the combined offers is £380, which falls in line with our remedies guidance, as referenced above. The apologies and compensation were sufficient to address the delayed complaint responses and the inconvenience caused.
  7. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in complaint handling. The landlord is not required to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint if it has already paid the compensation. If it has not, the Ombudsman has recommended the payment be made.

Determinations

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. Repairs to the heating and hot water system at the resident’s property.
    2. Reports of leaks and associated repairs.
    3. Repairs to damp, electrics, plaster cracks, and make good works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress before the investigation, which satisfactorily resolves concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay £1,350 to the resident, which consists of the following. The landlord may deduct any amounts awarded at both stages of its complaint responses if they have already been paid:
    1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays and poor handling of heating and hot water repairs.
    2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of internal leak repairs and resulting damage.
    3. £800 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays in addressing water ingress through the roof and associated internal repairs.
    4. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays, poor communication, and inadequate record-keeping relating to internal repairs.
  2. Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord must reimburse the resident for the reasonable costs she incurred completing repairs to the internal leak and kitchen ceiling. If the resident cannot provide evidence of these costs within 3 weeks of the landlord’s request, the landlord must calculate a fair amount based on what it would have cost for its usual contractor to undertake equivalent repairs.
  3. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must undertake a full inspection of the property. It must clearly identify any outstanding, incomplete, or remedial works. Following the inspection, the landlord must produce a comprehensive schedule of works, specifying an estimate of what will be done and when. This schedule must be provided to both the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its repair record-keeping to ensure all records are detailed, accurate, and consistently maintained. These records must be readily accessible to complaint-handling staff to support informed decision-making and ensure the timely resolution of complaints.
  2. The landlord should undertake a review to ensure that installation histories of key items (such as sinks, heating systems, and bathroom fittings) are accurate, complete, and readily accessible. This will help prevent confusion over repair responsibilities and avoid future delays.
  3. The landlord should reconsider reimbursing the resident’s additional utility costs incurred through reliance on temporary heating and hot water equipment, provided she supplies suitable evidence of increased costs, such as utility bills for the period when she was using temporary heaters and the same period the previous year.
  4. If the landlord has not already done so, it should make the total compensation payment of £380 awarded for complaint handling in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is based on the understanding that this will be paid.