London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202509263)

Decision
Case ID	202509263
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat since 1999. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident’s household, including diabetes and COPD. In May 2024, the resident reported a leak into his living room from his skylight.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a leak.
2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord failed to:
1. Ensure it passed the repair to a suitable contractor from the outset.
2. Check that it had completed repairs to the resident’s property.
3. Ensure subsequent repairs it raised were effectively managed to timely completion.
4. Identify failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos due to the leak.
5. Acknowledge all delays in its complaint handling.

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 for the landlord. 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 16 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,458 made up as follows: £1,628 based on a proportion of the resident’s rent between 7 May 2024 and 18 November 2025. This uses actual rent the resident paid during this time of between £133.48 and £137.26 per week) This is in recognition of the loss of use and enjoyment of the home. £450 in recognition of the impact of its poor communication about repairs and its failure to respond sooner to the resident’s concerns about asbestos. £380 for the impact of its complaint handling failings. The above awards replace the awards previously made by the landlord. Any payment it has already made should be deducted from the total.	No later than 16 January 2026
3	The landlord must contact the resident and consider evidence of increased heating costs. It should then reimburse these in line with its compensation policy.	No later than 16 January 2026
4	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure that repairs to the resident’s ceiling are completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed.	No later than 30 January 2026
5	The landlord must contact the resident to consider his concerns about mould growth on the ceiling following the leak. This should be addressed in line with processes and timescales set out in its damp and mould policy.	No later than 16 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 September 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that he had been waiting 5 months for it to fix a leak. He said issues were beginning to affect his health.
26 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It noted he reported the leak on 7 May 2024 and had been raised as a communal repair. It said it had now completed this work. It apologised for the delay and awarded the resident compensation of £540
20 August 2025	We wrote to the landlord requesting it provide a response a stage 2 to the resident on 28 August 2025
28 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged it had completed previous leak repairs to a neighbouring property. It said it was still arranging work required to resident’s property. It awarded him additional compensation of £980.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response. He said his requests that it test the ceiling for asbestos had been ignored. He wanted increased compensation for the impact of the leak issues.

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 handling of the leak
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident said the condition of his property had a negative effect on his family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

We have considered the landlord’s response to the leak the resident reported in May 2024. The landlord identified and acknowledged failings in its handling of this repair. It appropriately raised work following the resident’s report on 7 May 2024. Its repairs policy sets out its aim to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. In line with this, the resident could reasonably have expected it would complete work to resolve the leak by 4 June 2024. If it was going to take longer than this, the landlord should have communicated this to him.
The landlord subsequently identified and acknowledged work was delayed as it initially passed it to a carpenter, rather than a roofer. That was a failing. This would clearly have delayed progress. It should have ensured it directed work to a suitable contractor from the outset. Records show the landlord only identified this on 14 August 2024. That was more than 3 months after the repair had been raised. It noted it had communicated with the resident on 18 June 2024 to reschedule the repair appointment. But there is no evidence it let him know of this further delay. That was a further failing.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response in September 2024 that repairs had now been completed. However, it later identified it had completed this work to another property. Repairs to the resident’s own skylight were still outstanding. Records show the landlord had raised more than 1 communal roof repair to properties within the resident’s block around this time. It should have completed sufficient checks to ensure work it completed had addressed repair issues at the individual properties. It did not do so, and that was a further failing.
The landlord missed early opportunities to check and resolve the resident’s concerns that it had not completed adequate repairs. In response to its stage 1 complaint response, on 27 September 2024 he said he had not seen or heard any operatives completing repairs. Further, on 13 January 2025 he raised concerns that only patch repairs had been completed, and this was “unacceptable”. The landlord told the resident it would respond to him within 5 working days. But there is no evidence it did so. Had it reviewed repair records it should have identified repair work had not been completed.
The resident contacted the landlord again in early March 2025 to report that the leak was not resolved. Following this, on 15 April 2025, it raised another repair. However, it should not have delayed by more than a month following his contact. This was a further delay in progressing work.
By April 2025 it had noted the resident had reported that the leak through the skylight worsened when it rained. It had also noted his concerns about the impact of the situation on his health. Given the issues and delays with the repair, the landlord should have monitored work to ensure timely completion. But it did not adequately do so. While a contractor sent it a quote for scaffolding work on 28 May 2025, there is no evidence it acted to consider or progress this.
When the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 August 2025, the resident was still waiting for scaffolding to be erected for work. Following this, records indicate a further delay until scaffolding was approved on 26 September 2025. We acknowledge arranging scaffolding was a necessary step that would add time to the repair. We also acknowledge the landlord has a process for approving this work. But it took more than 5 months, following it raising further work on 15 April 2025, to confirm scaffolding arrangements. The extent of its delay was unreasonable. It is evidence of poor management of the work.
In communication with us in early December 2025, the resident confirmed that work to resolve the leak had recently been completed. He said that he was now waiting for internal work to resolve the ceiling repairs.
The landlord’s delays and poor management of this work has meant that the resident has experienced significant delays in it resolving a leak into his living room. Overall, he has had to wait approximately 19 months for it to complete repairs to stop the leak.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it would complete asbestos testing to the living room ceiling. However, it should have considered this action earlier. The resident told it on 19 September 2024 of his concern about asbestos, given the leak. These concerns were understandable, and the landlord should have acted to address them. Instead, the resident had to raise the issue repeatedly before it arranged a survey. It subsequently completed an asbestos survey in September 2025, and this confirmed no asbestos was present. But the landlord should have provided this reassurance to the resident much sooner. It did not appropriately identify or acknowledge this when it responded to his complaint.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak. The resident should not have had to wait so long for repairs to resolve the leak from the skylight. He said it meant he had to have a bucket under the leak into his living room during this period. He told us how the situation had impacted him. He said that it affected his sleep. He also said that he and his wife had missed being able to celebrate anniversaries at home or have family/friends visit. Further, he said they felt unable to go on holiday.
So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £1,240 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. It noted this considered the increased impact due to the household’s vulnerabilities. This went some way towards recognising the impact of the issues. But we consider it is appropriate for the landlord to instead make a rent-based award. This will appropriately recognise the resident’s loss of use/enjoyment of part of his property due to the issues.
Taking all the circumstances into account, we have ordered that the landlord make a payment to the resident of £1,628. This is 15% of the rent for the period between May 2024 and November 2025. We acknowledge it is not a precise calculation, but we consider it is fair recognition of the impact of issues on the resident and his household.
In addition, we have ordered that the landlord make separate award to him of £450. This is in recognition of the impact of its poor communication about repairs and its failure to respond sooner to his concerns about asbestos. The awards above are in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and replace the previous award made by the landlord.
The resident told us that he had increased his used of heating to help to dry the ceiling. We have ordered that the landlord contact him to consider compensation for his increased heating costs due to the issues. It should then reimburse these. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and the landlord’s compensation policy.
We have also set out an order relating to the completion of repair work to the ceiling following the leak. The resident told us of his concerns that mould may be growing on the ceiling following the leak. We have ordered that the landlord respond to and address his concern in line with its damp and mould policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how the landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord in September 2024, the relevant Code was the April 2024 edition. We have found that:
1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complied with the Code in respect of timescales.
2. The landlord provided a timely response to the resident’s initial complaint.
However, when the resident contacted the landlord in January 2025, it should have identified that he was dissatisfied with how his concerns had been resolved. In line with its complaints policy and the Code it should then have escalated his complaint and provided a stage 2 response to his concern. Despite him contacting the landlord several more times between January and July 2025, it did not act to provide a stage 2 complaint response until 29 August 2025. That was only after contact from the Ombudsman. The response was 6 months outside its target timescales.
The delay would have added to the resident’s concerns. It caused him further time and trouble chasing it and contacting us. It also delayed him being able to refer his complaint to us for independent review. Further, had the landlord appropriately addressed his concerns at stage 2 sooner, it could have ensured appropriate action was taken to resolve the leak sooner.
The landlord arranged an asbestos inspection during its stage 2 consideration of the complaint. But as noted earlier, this should have been arranged much sooner. The landlord should have identified and apologised for this in its complaint response. That it did not do so was a failing.
The landlord awarded the resident £180 in its stage 1 complaint response for time and effort getting his complaint resolved. It awarded him a further £100 for this in its stage 2 complaint response. However, it did not acknowledge or apologise for any delay in its complaints response. It should have done so. Given the failings identified above, its £100 award does not adequately recognise the impact of its failings We have considered the circumstances and referred to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We have ordered that the landlord make a further award to the resident of £100. This amount, together with earlier awards, provides appropriate compensation to fully recognise the impact of complaint handling failings.

Learning

The landlord should ensure jobs are passed to suitable contractors from the outset.
The landlord should ensure it makes adequate checks to ensure repair work has been completed.
The landlord should remind its complaint handling staff of the importance of timely escalation of complaints, in line with the Code.

Communication

The landlord did not communicate with the resident appropriately to keep him updated about the repair or his complaint.