London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202215556)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s actions following a leak from the flat above. He states it failed to provide a meaningful response or resolution. He also raised several concerns about the actions of its contractors, including theft of personal items in 2022. He requested that the landlord reimburse him for the costs incurred refurbishing his home.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Requests for repairs.
   2. A report of theft by a contractor.
   3. Reports of contractors urinating on the resident’s wall.
   4. The resident’s request for reimbursement after refurbishing the property.
   5. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We determined:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
      1. Requests for repairs.
      2. Reports of contractors urinating on the resident’s wall.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
      1. Reports of theft by a contractor.
      2. The complaint.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
      1. The resident’s request for reimbursement after refurbishing the property.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs

4. The landlord failed to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe and did not communicate effectively with the resident, resulting in distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of a report of theft by a contractor

5. The landlord reimbursed the resident for stolen items, despite no evidence to quantify his loss.

The landlord’s handling of reports of contractors urinating on the resident’s wall

6. The landlord provided a limited response and too little compensation when considering the distress caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement after refurbishing the property

7. The landlord responded fairly by considering the resident’s request and explaining why it would not reimburse his costs. Its reasoning was fair.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

8. The landlord recognised its failings, apologised to the resident, and awarded proportionate compensation.

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.

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.

What we have not considered

9. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of personal information would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider. We have not considered this further.
10. The resident told the landlord that its handling of the issues had a detrimental impact on his health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
11. The resident said he felt the landlord discriminated against him due to his race throughout all aspects of his complaint. The landlord opened a separate complaint to investigate this. We have therefore not investigated these concerns within this determination.

What we have considered

12. In 2021, the resident reported being locked out for approximately 1 week after a contractor broke a key in the door lock. Landlord records confirm it raised an emergency repair order in line with its policy. However, it cancelled the order on 19 November 2021, citing “housekeeping” as the reason. Due to limited evidence, we cannot determine when the resident first reported the issue, the outcome of the work order, or the actual duration of the lockout. The resident has not demonstrated attempts to escalate the matter at the time. We remind residents that delays in raising complaints can result in unavailable evidence and hinder investigations.
13. In April 2023, the resident made repeated attempts to contact the landlord, reporting loss of water supply due to contractors working in the property above. He also raised concerns about damp patches on ceilings and walls, attributing these to a leak. Emails show he was unable to reach anyone by telephone and instead contacted individual staff members rather than using the landlord’s repairs reporting system, which likely contributed to delays.
14. The landlord has not provided evidence of actions taken while the resident was without water. He said the supply was reinstated on 21 April 2023, but the landlord’s involvement remains unclear.
15. Records refer to a property inspection on 27 April 2023, yet the landlord did not supply a copy of an inspection report, representing a shortcoming in its record keeping. It raised a work order and made a damp/mould referral on 28 April 2023, which was appropriate given the reported leak.
16. Contractors attempted to contact the resident in May 2023, but he objected to the landlord sharing his contact details and refused a direct booking. In July 2023, the landlord noted his insistence that it coordinate all works. While residents may set preferences, the landlord cannot be held responsible for delays caused by refusal to engage with contractors acting on its behalf.
17. Following the leak, the landlord raised a job for an electrician, but its contractor attempted entry via the wrong entrance and reported no access. The landlord acknowledged this error and offered a same-day appointment, but the resident had already arranged his own electrician. It was reasonable for it to decline reimbursement, as its repairs policy requires residents to allow fair opportunity for the landlord to remedy issues.
18. The landlord arranged another inspection in August 2023, but it is unclear whether further water ingress occurred. It did not provide a report or evidence of its findings, again highlighting poor record keeping.
19. The landlord agreed to complete internal repairs using a like-for-like paint colour. The resident cancelled a work order because it did not include plastering. It considered plastering unnecessary following inspection. While entitled to rely on professional judgment, it should have explained its reasoning to avoid misunderstanding. In December 2023, it confirmed the scope of works with the resident and scheduled repairs for 19 January 2024.
20. The landlord did not progress repairs as planned after its stage 2 response. Its records indicate the resident cancelled appointments in January and February 2024; he disputes this, stating January was due to illness and February was cancelled by the contractor. It remains unclear whether repairs are outstanding.
21. The resident raised concerns about asbestos and the landlord not sharing a Construction Design and Management (CDM) file. At stage 1, it confirmed an October 2022 survey found no asbestos. At stage 2, it said it referred to its asbestos team and surveyor, but there is no evidence of it responding to the resident. This is failure in service. We have seen no requirement for a landlord to share a CDM file with a tenant, unless it contained personal data and was potentially included in a Subject Access Request. There is no evidence of this. If concerned about data handling, the resident may contact the ICO. Ultimately, the landlord should have clearly explained its position following his request for the document.
22. At stage 2, the landlord stated a named staff member was handling the front door replacement and gate repair. Records show no evidence that the door was insecure for over 10 years, as claimed by the resident. It also advised him to report a smashed window via its repairs service, which was consistent with its policy.
23. The resident reported damaged electrical blinds and discarded towels and duvets used to soak up water from the leak. The landlord advised him to claim through its liability insurance, which aligns with its complaints policy.
24. The insurer concluded the damage was caused by contractors working on the vacant property above and denied landlord liability. It provided contractor details for the resident to pursue a claim directly. Insurer actions fall outside our remit.
25. The resident asked who instructed the contractors working in the property above. At stage 1, the landlord said a managing agent owned the property; at stage 2, it referred to “our contractors.” No evidence shows the landlord clarified this, likely causing frustration. This potentially delayed his ability to pursue his claim.
26. The landlord failed to communicate effectively. There were repeated delays in responding to the resident’s calls and requests for updates, despite urgent issues like a lack of water supply and concerns about property damage. It did not evidence that it provided clear progress reports or confirm next steps, leaving him uncertain and likely frustrated. This lack of proactive engagement contributed to his complaint and represents a breach of its core service standards.
27. In summary, there were delays in progressing remedial works and shortcomings in the landlord’s communication. The resident’s refusal to engage with contractors also contributed. It was reasonable for it to advise him to report repairs via official channels such as by email, its website, or contact centre as it is unable to monitor emails to individual staff.
28. The compensation offered at stage 2 lacked clarity as to whether it replaced or supplemented the stage 1 offer. We have asked the landlord to learn from this for future cases.
29. We would have found maladministration had the landlord not accepted some responsibility for its shortcomings, apologised, and offered redress. When assessing compensation, we consider the distress and inconvenience caused, the time and effort spent pursuing the matter, and the detriment resulting from the landlord’s actions. We also account for any mitigating factors. Our awards are generally moderate, reflecting the landlord’s need to use its limited resources effectively for the benefit of all residents.
30. Considering the circumstances of this case, we find compensation of £350 is fair and consistent with our remedies guidance for the service failures identified for this aspect of the case.

31. The resident reported theft of his personal property by a contractor. The landlord informed him that the person accused of theft no longer worked for it. Theft is a criminal matter for the police to investigate. The landlord gave him appropriate advice about this.
32. The landlord’s repairs policy states residents are responsible for insuring their own possessions and obtaining contents insurance. Its compensation policy sets out that it is not intended to replace or compensate for a customer’s lack of contents insurance.
33. The landlord appropriately advised the resident to claim for stolen items through insurance. Landlords typically manage such matters via insurers and are not obliged to consider claims outside of this process.
34. At stage 2, the landlord sought clarification from its liability insurer, which advised that the policy excluded intentional acts of theft. It also confirmed the resident did not hold contents insurance. Considering these factors, and to provide a fair resolution, it decided to reimburse him for the stolen items. This approach was more than reasonable given he had not substantiated the financial loss or item values. This demonstrated its commitment to resolving the matter despite limited evidence.
35. The resident reported that he curtailed his holiday following the theft and sought reimbursement from the landlord for accommodation costs (£2,136.53), flight expenses (£497.44), in addition to £2,900 for stress and loss of enjoyment. While we acknowledge his concerns, these costs fall outside the scope of the landlord’s compensation policy, and it would not be reasonable to expect it to cover them. Furthermore, it stated at stage 2 that he completed the holiday as planned. If the holiday was curtailed, it would be more appropriate for him to pursue a claim for accommodation and flight costs via travel insurance.

36. The resident reported that contractors urinated on his wall and provided CCTV footage to the landlord. These actions fell significantly below the expected standard of conduct. This behaviour caused understandable distress and upset to the resident.
37. The landlord is responsible for the actions of its contractors and should have taken prompt and effective steps to address the incidents. While it confirmed that a contractor identified in its investigation was no longer engaged to carry out work on its behalf, it is unclear what further action it took in response to the allegation that more than 1 contractor was involved, other than referring the matter to its HR team. This lack of clarity represents a failure to demonstrate that it took comprehensive steps to prevent recurrence and uphold service standards.
38. The landlord offered £80 compensation. We do not consider this amount sufficient. Considering the nature of the matter, the landlord’s limited response, and the distress caused, we find £150 to be a more appropriate level of compensation. We also expect it to reimburse any reasonable cleaning costs associated with the incidents, subject to the provision of evidence.

39. The resident refurbished his property, including a new bathroom, new kitchen, new flooring, new central heating system and redecoration. He also installed an access control system and CCTV. He asked the landlord to reimburse him £26,187.60 for the refurbishment and £1,800 for the replacement access control. He felt this was required under the terms of his lease. He later asked it to reimburse the cost of the CCTV installation.
40. The resident has not provided a copy of a lease to us. The landlord provided a screenshot of its internal system showing the resident is an assured tenant, not a leaseholder. It has not provided a copy of a signed tenancy agreement. It has submitted a blank agreement containing the terms relating to his occupation of the premises.
41. The resident carried out significant refurbishment works without notifying the landlord or obtaining prior consent. Although he states the housing manager agreed the works, we have seen no evidence to support this, nor any evidence that he asked the landlord to complete the works or gave it an opportunity to do so.
42. The landlord’s repairs policy requires residents to seek written permission before making home improvements. This rule ensures compliance with building regulations, protects structural integrity, and avoids insurance or planning issues. Undertaking works without consent creates risks for both parties.
43. The evidence available indicates the resident acted without telling the landlord or getting written permission. This meant it could not decide whether the property needed the work or to arrange it itself. The resident’s spending was voluntary. From what we have seen, there is no contractual reason for the landlord to pay these costs. Therefore, its decision not to reimburse him was reasonable, following normal practice and rules that apply to rented properties.

44. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 working days. These timeframes should not be exceeded without valid justification.
45. The landlord issued late responses at both stages of its complaint process. There were also delays acknowledging the complaint. This was not in line with the Code or its complaints policy.
46. At stage 2, the landlord apologised for the delay. It offered the resident £150 compensation for his time and trouble pursuing the complaint and £100 for poor complaint handling. The total compensation award of £250 is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s own policy.

Learning

General learning

47. When offering compensation at both complaint stages, the landlord should be clear whether its stage 2 offer replaces the stage 1 offer or is in addition.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

48. The landlord should retain copies of all surveys and inspection reports.

Communication

49. At times, the landlord failed to follow up with the resident where it committed to do so. It should consider how it can track and monitor commitments throughout to completion.