London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202439342)

Decision
Case ID	202439342
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	17 December 2025

Background

The resident’s flat is supplied with hot water and heating via a communal heating network operated by the landlord. The resident was dissatisfied with repeated outages of these services over a 1-month period. The resident does not believe he should be charged for the associated call outs.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of hot water and heating loss.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of hot water and heating loss.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of hot water and heating loss

The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy obligations when handling reports of outages of these services.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. However, it failed to address all the points raised by 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 senior member of staff. 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 21 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the 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.	No later than 21 January 2026
3	Order The landlord must respond to the outstanding issues raised by the resident in his complaint about its communication regarding the status of the outages. The landlord should outline to the resident in writing: what its process was and whether it followed this during the period of outages considered in this case the level of communication the resident may expect in future regarding any communal faults which affect his property The landlord must provide evidence of compliance by the due date.	No later than 21 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord informs the resident how to request further information about his service charges and related costs.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 November 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He said he experienced a loss of hot water and heating on 7 occasions since 30 October 2024. He asked the landlord to compensate him for the service charge payments and repeated disruption. The resident also said that the process of reporting each outage took longer than necessary.
21 November 2024	The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident on this date. It noted that his main concern was being charged for each call out when the issue was not being resolved.
22 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said it had resolved the most recent outage on 19 November 2024 within its 24-hour service level agreement. It confirmed it was reviewing the condition of the plant room and putting preventative measures in place.
22 November 2024	The resident asked to escalate his complaint and said that the landlord failed to capture the true reason for his dissatisfaction at stage 1. The resident said that: he felt it was unfair for the landlord to charge him for each call out as it needed repeated visits to resolve the same problem the repeated outages caused inconvenience, particularly during cold weather he was dissatisfied that the landlord had not kept him updated about the status of each outage The resident also asked the landlord to evidence whether it resolved all 7 outages within 24 hours.
5 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It provided a list of all recorded outages and confirmed that each was resolved within 24 hours. The landlord said it was in the process of implementing its contractors’ recommendations to replace the pressurisation unit. It said it would fit this part as soon as it became available. In the meantime, it would continue to ensure that the plant was operating smoothly. The landlord also clarified that it was not charging residents for individual call outs, even if they logged the job. It said that call outs related to the plant room were covered under communal reactive repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said that: he had experienced 6 more outages since the landlord closed his complaint he was paying for communal reactive repairs through his service charges, therefore contributing to the cost of the repeated call outs the landlord had not updated him on the status of the outages The resident asked to be refunded for the service which he said was unreliable, and compensated for every day he had no hot water.

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 response to reports of hot water and heating loss.
Finding	No maladministration

Based on the information available on its website, the landlord correctly explained that any call outs for the plant room are charged under communal reactive repairs. These costs form part of the resident’s service charges. The lease confirms that service charges are adjusted to reflect the actual cost of services after the end of each financial year. Therefore, when the landlord issued its response, the actual impact of any call out charges was not yet known.
It was reasonable for the landlord to explain how the call outs were funded. However, it could have improved its communication by letting the resident know how he could access details about the costs it had incurred, or challenge any charges in future. It is also important to note that we may not consider complaints concerning the level of service charge or the level of increase of service charges. If the resident wants to challenge this, he may wish to seek independent advice.
The landlord’s records show that there were 7 outages of heating and hot water reported between 27 October 2024 and 19 November 2024. The landlord confirmed that its emergency repair timescale of 24 hours applied to these reports. It had restored the services in under 2 hours and 30 minutes on 6 out 7 occasions. There was 1 outage which lasted just under 6 hours. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its policy timescales on all reported occasions.
The resident raised concerns about the effectiveness of the repairs, given the frequency of call outs. The landlord is entitled to rely on its contractor’s professional opinion when deciding what steps to take to resolve a fault. The contractor notes show that in order to restore services, they reset the pressurisation unit on each occasion. There is no evidence that they advised the landlord to take any alternative steps during this period.
By the time of its stage 2 response, issued on 5 December 2024, no further outages had been recorded since 19 November 2024. The landlord explained its contractor had recommended replacing the pressurisation unit and that it had ordered the part. It said that while it was waiting for this to become available, it also arranged daily engineer visits to ensure the system was operating smoothly. This was a reasonable approach.
The landlord said it replaced the pressurisation unit in July 2025. It is unclear why this took 7 months from when it ordered the part. The resident reported that there were 6 further outages after the landlord closed his complaint. However, the landlord’s records show 2 reports. In any case, the landlord’s communal repairs log, with repairs noted until August 2025, does not show any further call outs related to loss of hot water or heating after 14 December 2024. This demonstrates that the landlord followed through on its stage 2 promise to continue ensuring that the plant was operating smoothly until such time as the replacement parts could be installed.
The resident was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication. He noted there was only 1 instance when he received a text message about an outage. It would be good practice for the landlord to update affected residents on the status of any communal repairs. However, we have not seen detail of the landlord’s process regarding this which means we are unable to determine what it should have done. The landlord has also not provided its own response on this point, which we have addressed below.
In conclusion, we acknowledge that the resident experienced inconvenience due to repeated outages of hot water and heating. However, the landlord has shown that it acted in accordance with its policy obligations in restoring the services. It also acted reasonably by implementing its contractor’s recommendation. The landlord’s decision not to offer compensation was also in line with its compensation policy. This says it would only do so in cases where its failure has caused a resident to experience a loss of amenity or if it had not resolved this within agreed timeframes. We have not seen evidence that the landlord caused any of the outages and it responded promptly to each report.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaints Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. The landlord responded in line with these timescales at both stages of its process.
However, the landlord’s responses at each stage were incomplete. At stage 1, it did not address the resident’s concerns about call out charges. At stage 2, it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about communication regarding the status of the call outs. This was despite the resident raising this issue in his escalation request sent by email.
This was not in keeping with the provisions of the Code which say landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. By not addressing the full complaint, the landlord also missed an opportunity to review its actions and put things right.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience its failure has caused him. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Learning

The landlord demonstrated good practice by responding to and restoring the amenities within its policy timescales.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

It is positive that the landlord’s records include the dates and times of call outs and the actions taken during each visit. However, the landlord could benefit from recording any follow up recommendations and expected timescales for implementation, to support transparency.

Communication

The landlord is reminded of the importance of recording and responding to all the resident’s reasons for dissatisfaction or escalation within its complaint responses. This is the landlord’s opportunity to review the service it provided and address any issues early.