London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202333178)

Background

1. The resident has been a leaseholder of a 3rd floor flat in a new build block since 2018. The resident reported composite decking on his balcony was damaged.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to balcony decking.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to balcony decking.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to balcony decking

4. The landlord took a year to repair the damaged balcony decking. This was an unreasonable delay and far in excess of the timescales set out in its repair policy. It acknowledged it had taken too long to fix the issue and offered £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The compensation offered was proportionate to the landlord’s failing and the impact of the failing on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. In the main, the landlord complied with the processes set out in its complaints policy. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalated complaint as it should have done. It offered £100 compensation for this failing. The compensation offered resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Putting things right

We have the discretion to make recommendations where we have found reasonable redress in how a landlord handled a complaint.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. On 14 October 2022 the resident told the landlord the composite decking on his balcony was damaged.
7. The property lease says the landlord is responsible to repair the surface of the balcony, and the landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to carry out non-urgent repairs within 25 calendar days. Although the landlord immediately raised a work order to repair the decking the same day it was reported, it did not carry out any repairs in accordance with the timeframes in place.
8. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 June 2023 that it had not repaired the decking. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, offered £250 compensation for the delays and said it was waiting for the replacement decking to be delivered.
9. The landlord’s complaint response recognised its failure to carry out the decking repair and offered redress to the resident for this. Although the landlord said it would contact the resident to arrange the repair when it had the correct materials, it did not provide a timescale of when it intended to do so.
10. The decking was not repaired until 13 October 2023, due to contractors not attending agreed appointments and not having the correct materials to complete the repair when they did attend.
11. The resident escalated his complaint due the further repair delays. In its stage 2 complaint response of 31 October 2023 the landlord confirmed the decking had been repaired earlier that month. It apologised and increased its compensation offer to £660 for the delays in carrying out the repair. The resident asked for a higher compensation amount. The landlord increased its offer after its final complaint response to £900 on 1 November 2023.
12. Although the resident accepted the landlord’s revised compensation offer, the cheque it sent was lost in the post. The replacement cheque it sent in January 2024 contained an incorrect name. The resident decided not to accept the compensation. He raised another complaint with the landlord regarding an unrelated issue with his balcony. This matter has already been subject to investigation by us.
13. Following the conclusion of the resident’s unrelated complaint, the landlord held further discussions with him in August 2025 regarding the compensation it previously offered for the delayed decking repair. The landlord again offered £900 for the delayed repair, in addition to a further £100 for the administration errors with sending the cheque. The resident accepted the compensation offer and the landlord paid it into his bank account on 18 September 2025.
14. When a failure is identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
15. The evidence shows the landlord accepted it had got things wrong. It apologised and offered redress to the resident for the inconvenience the repair delays caused him. The level of compensation offered to the resident during the landlord’s complaints process was in line with an amount considered appropriate by us to provide remedy for the failures which were present in the circumstances. The figure offered was proportionate to the failings by the landlord and distress and inconvenience caused by the delay up to the point the offer was made.
16. The landlord increased the compensation in recognition of the problems encountered in making the payment. Although this increased offer was made 19 months after the failed payment, we recognise this was impacted by another ongoing unrelated complaint which the resident was waiting for a decision on.
17. Increased offers of compensation made after the conclusion of a landlord’s complaints process rarely meet the criteria to be determined as reasonable redress. A referral to our Service by a resident should not be seen as another opportunity for a landlord to settle a complaint by increasing its offer of compensation in an attempt to resolve the complaint.
18. However, our investigation has found there were legitimate reasons for the landlord to offer further compensation in response to the changing circumstances. The offer made was reasonable and proportionate to the landlord’s failings. As such, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s balcony decking. The offer provided satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

19. The landlord’s complaints policy states it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at stage 1 and send a response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the complaint is escalated to stage 2 the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, and it should send its response within 20 working days.
20. The resident’s initial complaint was made on 23 June 2023, and the landlord sent its stage 1 response the same day.
21. The resident escalated his complaint on 11 October 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint.
22. On 31 October 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, which was within its policy timescale. The landlord apologised for not acknowledging the complaint and offered £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident.
23. The evidence shows the landlord replied to the resident’s complaints within the overall timescales provided by its complaints policy. It apologised and offered compensation for its failure to acknowledge the escalation request. The redress offered by the landlord is in line with an amount we would expect for such a failing in accordance with our remedies guidance. It was proportionate to the level of the failing and the minimal detriment caused as a result. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord demonstrated good record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in this case.

Communication

25. The investigation has shown there were long periods where the resident was not updated regarding the outstanding repairs.