London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202344966)

Decision
Case ID	202344966
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	12 December 2025

Background

1. The resident has lived in a ground floor flat in the building since March 2021. She told the Ombudsman since moving in there has been an ongoing issue with the communal front door.
2. The resident said the lock often breaks, leaving the building unsecure. She said when the landlord repaired the lock in 2023 it failed to supply her, or her neighbours, with keys. This meant the door was often left unlocked to allow residents access.
3. The resident told the Ombudsman in 2023 an issue with the guttering developed. She said it caused the guttering to overflow into her garden following rainfall.

What the complaint is about

4. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for keys to the front communal entry door.
   2. Reports of issues with the guttering on the rear of the building.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for keys to the front communal entry door.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the guttering on the rear of the building.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Communal front door keys

6. The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to provide the resident with the keys. It failed to explain the delays or explain why it did not supply the keys when the lock was changed.

Guttering on rear of building

7. While the landlord eventually completed some repairs to the guttering on the rear of the building, it took an unreasonable amount of time to do so. It failed to take accountability for its part in the delay.

Complaint Handling

8. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s escalation request. However, it appropriately acknowledged this in its response, apologised and offered a reasonable level of compensation for the delay.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: –          £350 for the delays and additional failings identified in this determination in its handling of the resident’s request for communal front door keys. –          £150 for the additional failings identified in this determination in its handling of the resident’s report of issues with the guttering on the rear of the building.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.   This amount is in addition to any previous offers of compensation the landlord has made. If it has not already done so, it should now pay any previously offered compensation to the resident as well.	No later than 19 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: She had been reporting an issue with the guttering since July 2023 but it had failed to take any action. It had still not supplied her with keys to the front communal door following a recent lock change. She wanted it to repair the guttering and supply her with a key.
1 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: Its contractor had tried to inspect the guttering in July 2023 but had not gained access. It had since reattended and submitted a quote for works that was awaiting approval from its repairs panel. A job to provide the resident with the keys had been raised in October 2023. It would chase its neighbourhoods team to supply the keys as soon as possible.
23 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord’s explanation for guttering repair delays did not make sense as any inspections could be completed without allowing access. She also said there had been off and on issues with the front communal door lock for the past two years, not just since the most recent lock change.
16 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It: Acknowledged there had been delays completing guttering repairs. It said its contractor’s quote had not been approved by its panel. It had asked the contractor to provide an amended quote which it was still awaiting. Once a quote was approved it would organise for the repair to go ahead. Acknowledged the key issue was still unresolved. It said its first record of an issue with the lock was from March 2023 when it arranged to change the lock and provide the keys to all residents. The lock had eventually been changed in September 2023. It said it had chased its neighbourhoods team who could supply the key. It provided contact details for that team for her to contact if she did not hear anything. Apologised for the delays in resolving both issues, as well as complaint handling issues. It offered her £500 compensation in total.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman she said: The landlord’s response about the communal door lock and keys was incorrect. The issue had been ongoing since 2021. The guttering had still not been repaired and the overflow was causing damage to her garden. She felt the compensation offered did not reflect the impact both issues had on her. She wanted it to supply the keys, repair the guttering and increase its compensation offer.

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	Communal door keys
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

9. When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman she said the communal front door lock issue had been ongoing since 2021.
10. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaint issues which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident’s formal complaint to the landlord about the lock and keys was in October 2023. For that reason, we will not investigate matters from 2021. Rather, this investigation centres on the landlord’s response to the complaint in 2023.

What we investigated

11. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for communal doors and linked entry systems.
12. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says when a landlord deals with a complaint it should be fair, provide an explanation, put things right and learn from the complaint.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will take into consideration the length of time an issue has been going on for, any avoidable distress and inconvenience caused and how it communicated with the resident.
14. The resident complained that the landlord had not provided her with keys for a newly fitted lock on the communal front door. She said she first requested the keys in September 2023 and chased it several times but she, and her neighbours, had not received any. This meant the communal door was being left open to allow access and impacting the security of the building. She wanted it to provide her, and her neighbours, with keys.
15. The landlord acknowledged it had failed to supply the keys to the resident. It said it had chased its neighbourhoods team, who were responsible for supplying the keys, multiple times to resolve the matter. It apologised for the ongoing delays and said the neighbourhoods team would supply the keys as soon as possible. At stage 2 it offered her £120 compensation for the distress and inconvenience the issue caused her.
16. Given the circumstances of new locks with no keys for the residents, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its poor service and apologise. However, the rest of its response was not reasonable.
17. The landlord failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not supplying the keys when it changed the lock. Likewise, it failed to explain the ongoing delays, nor is there any other evidence to explain this. It also failed to say how it intended to resolve the matter or provide a timeframe for when the resident should receive the keys. Additionally, it did not explain how it would learn from the failures it identified. This meant its response did not comply with the principles of the Code and showed a lack of accountability.
18. The £120 compensation the landlord offered did not reflect the avoidable nature of the issue or the lack of communication it had with the resident which led her to repeatedly chase it for updates. It also failed to reflect that the issue had been ongoing for 4 months when it issued its stage 2 response and even then it was not resolved.
19. Furthermore, the landlord took several months after its stage 2 complaint response to provide the resident with keys. The exact date the keys were provided is not clear but appears to have been sometime in spring 2024. Taking several more months to do so following its stage 2 response was unreasonable as the issue had already been ongoing since the lock was changed September 2023. There is no evidence to explain the additional delay or to show it was keeping the resident updated. This was not appropriate as it showed a lack of learning from her complaint.
20. Overall the landlord’s response failed to take accountability for the delay providing the keys, or provide an explanation for this. Despite saying it would provide the keys in its stage 2 response, it took several more months to do so, which showed a lack of learning from the complaint. Likewise, the compensation it offered did not reflect the nature and scale of the delays and the obvious impact on the resident.

Complaint	Guttering repair
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

21. The resident has told the Ombudsman that while the landlord did complete repairs to the guttering in May 2024 the issue returned. However, we will not investigate a complaint before a landlord has had the opportunity to address and respond to it. As this further issue arose after the end of the complaint being considered here, the resident needs to report it to the landlord, and then make a new complaint to it if she is dissatisfied with its responses. Following that she has the option of returning to us.

What we investigated

22. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for repair and maintenance of gutters on all its properties.
23. The resident complained that the landlord had failed to repair the guttering at the rear of the building after she first reported the issue to it in July 2023. She said during rainfall the guttering overflowed and caused damage to her garden and the external walls of her property. At stage 2 she also queried the actions the landlord said it had taken in its stage 1 response. She wanted it to repair the guttering.
24. In the landlord’s response it acknowledged there had been delays in repairing the guttering. At stage 1 it attributed these delays to its contractors not being able to access and inspect the guttering in July 2023 and only submitting a quote for works in November 2023 following a second successful visit. At stage 2 it explained further delays had occurred after its repairs panel had refused the contractor’s first quote and had asked it to provide an amended quote that it was still awaiting. It said once the quote was approved it would start the necessary repairs. It apologised for the delays and offered £120 compensation, comprised of £60 for both distress and inconvenience caused.
25. It was right for the landlord to acknowledge the gutter repair delays and apologise. Additionally the landlord did go on to complete guttering repairs in May 2024 as it said it would in its stage 2 response. However its response was unreasonable in parts.
26. There is no evidence to support the landlord’s explanation that its contractors attempted to inspect the guttering in July 2023. Likewise, there is no evidence of the contractor arranging another inspection until October 2023. It was only then, 3 months after the first report that it then provided its quote. Nothing in the evidence explains the delay, and the landlord did not explain it in its complaint response.
27. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was waiting for an amended quote and would complete the repair once approved. The contractor sent it the amended quote on 22 January 2024, but the guttering was not repaired until May 2024. While some delay was due to waiting for approval from its repairs panel, there is no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated. This was unreasonable given the issue had been ongoing since July 2023 and was clearly a concern for her.
28. £120 compensation did not sufficiently cover the landlord’s failings in its handling of the guttering issues or the impact this had on the resident. It failed to reflect the length of time it had taken to inspect the guttering, raise works and get the works approved. It also failed to reflect its poor communication with the resident, who during this time was continually chasing for updates.
29. Overall, while the landlord did acknowledge some failings in its handling of the gutter repair it failed to recognise the full extent. It failed to acknowledge how its own actions had led to avoidable delays in getting the repair raised, or its lack of communication about the issue with the resident. While it was appropriate for it to offer compensation, what it offered did not reflect all of its failings or the impact this had on the resident.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

30. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to issue to response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says it can extend either deadline by a further 10 working days if needed and agreed with the resident.
31. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
32. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 1 working day. This was within the timeframe set out in its policy and was therefore reasonable.
33. It took 35 working days for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response. This was outside the timeframe in its policy. However, when it acknowledged the resident’s escalation it told her it was experiencing some delays due to a high volume of complaints and it therefore may take longer than 20 working days to respond. Additionally, it acknowledged the delay in its response, apologised and offered £260 compensation for its complaint handling overall. This was reasonable given the length of the delay and impact on the resident.
34. Overall, while there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the stage 2 complaint, it recognised this in its response, appropriately apologised and offered a reasonable level of compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. There were gaps in the landlord’s record keeping, including records of attempted visits by its contractors or when certain repairs were completed.
36. The landlord should ensure it keeps a robust record of contact from its contractors and any completed repairs.

Communication

37. Throughout this case the landlord failed to keep in regular communication with the resident regarding both repair issues and the handling of her complaint.
38. The landlord should ensure to keep resident’s regularly updated on progress of repairs and complaints.