London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202331981)

Decision
Case ID	202331981
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

The resident moved into the property, a 1-bedroom flat, in 1995. When she first complained to the landlord about home upgrades in 2022, she said her kitchen and bathroom had remained unchanged since she moved in. She raised concerns about the fairness of the landlord’s approach to the matter. The landlord is aware that the resident has chronic mental and physical health conditions.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of bathroom and kitchen repairs, and related requests for capital upgrades.
2. complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of bathroom and kitchen repairs, and related requests for capital upgrades.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s queries relating to bathroom and kitchen upgrades

We found that the landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the resident throughout the issue, unreasonably delayed completing necessary repairs and adaptations without explaining the reasons for delays, did not adequately answer the resident’s questions about why her kitchen and bathroom were not upgraded, and failed to consider her vulnerabilities and the impact on her wellbeing during the process.

Complaint handling

We found that the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timeframe and did not reasonably address the reasons for such a significant 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	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 manager or director. 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 05 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident: £950 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to her by the failures in its handling of her reports of bathroom and kitchen repairs, and related requests for capital upgrades. The landlord may deduct the £780 it has already offered if this has been paid. £250 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to her by the failures in its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct the £100 it has already offered if this has been paid. 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 05 January 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must write to the resident and explain its planned works programme to address her concerns about its fairness. The landlord should ensure it includes information about component lifespans and how it monitors when a component is due for an upgrade.	No later than 05 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 June 2022 – 15 July 2022	The resident sent 2 letters to the landlord. She raised concerns about the kitchen and bathroom in her flat and said a job to repaint her bathroom wall and hang a towel rail had been cancelled 6 or 7 times since 2019. She requested clarification as to why she had not received any home upgrades when other residents in the block had.
10 October 2022	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord via letter. She said: she had not received any response to her letters dated 26 June 2022 and 15 July 2022. she wanted to be compensated for 2 appointments which were cancelled at short notice, one of which was because an operative attended without the correct equipment. she suffered with chronic health problems and had been impacted by having to get up earlier than usual for the appointments. She said having to repeatedly write letters was causing her pain.
14 October 2022	The landlord’s stage 1 response said: it had upheld the complaint. the repairs in the bathroom were suspended until 2022 due to the Coronavirus pandemic. the relevant repair had now been completed, and a supervisor would contact the resident shortly to arrange an inspection of her bathroom and kitchen floors. it had offered the resident £140 for the delayed repair and resulting inconvenience.
27 October 2022	The resident said the landlord had not contacted her about the promised bathroom and kitchen floor work, failed to address her request for a grab rail and disability-friendly taps, did not answer her question about the age of fixtures and fittings, and she felt discriminated against as other residents had received bathroom and kitchen upgrades.
12 December 2022	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: the landlord had not answered any of her previous letters and repeatedly paying for postage was impacting her financially. she had not received an update on the repairs and adaptations she had requested and was frustrated over having to report them a fifth time. she felt she was being unfairly treated by the landlord and wanted it to answer her questions relating to bathroom and kitchen upgrades.
10 February 2023	The landlord acknowledged that a supervisor had not contacted the resident as agreed and offered a £100 e-voucher. It said bathroom flooring works would be raised once contractors provided an asbestos report. It confirmed bathroom wall redecoration and towel rail installation were completed on 12 September 2022 and added the resident’s kitchen to its component referral programme.
11 June 2023	The resident wrote to the landlord and queried why she had still not received a stage 2 response. She said her mental health was suffering significantly.
4 December 2023	The landlord provided a new stage 1 response. It addressed the resident’s kitchen and bathroom upgrade queries, as well as some new issues relating to parking and a request for a postage refund. It said it had closed its previous complaint cases and requested the complaint reference relating to the resident’s unanswered escalation request. It denied any discriminatory behaviour towards the resident and explained that all refurbishments were put on a planned programme when required.
22 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: the resident’s kitchen was being refurbished and it would write to the resident to confirm that her bathroom was also on its planned programme. it had offered £640 compensation, broken down as follows: – £500 for distress and inconvenience caused. – £40 for time and effort caused to the resident by having to repeatedly write letters to the landlord. – £100 for the delayed stage 2 response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. She said the landlord had delayed in issuing her compensation and had failed to provide written confirmation that her bathroom would be refurbished. She said she had repeatedly tried to contact the landlord for an update on the agreed actions but had been unsuccessful.
9 November 2025	The resident told us that the landlord upgraded her kitchen in 2024 and installed a new wet room in 2025.

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 handling of the resident’s reports relating to bathroom and kitchen upgrades.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident raised concerns that the landlord has discriminated against her. If the resident believes she has been unlawfully discriminated against, she may wish to seek independent advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on her options. However, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about discrimination.

What we have investigated

The landlord raised 4 works orders for the resident’s bathroom mixer taps between March 2022 and April 2022. It is unclear from the landlord’s records why this work was repeatedly re-raised, or when it was completed. It sent a letter to the resident on 25 April 2022 stating the work was booked for 18 May 2022, but a works order for the same job shows a completion date of 26 April 2022. We have also not seen evidence of the resident’s initial reports. We are therefore unable to determine whether the landlord completed the repair in a timely manner.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s letter dated 26 June 2022, or that it took any action in response to her repair concerns. This was unreasonable, particularly given that the resident had explained the impact of the issues on her vulnerabilities.
In her letter dated 15 July 2022, the resident said she had phoned the landlord twice in the past week to rebook the works to her bathroom wall and towel rail. She said the work had been cancelled last minute on 2 occasions since, one of which because an operative had turned up without the correct equipment. The landlord’s records show that it did not complete the work until 12 September 2022, 2 months later. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident.
The delay in completing the work was not explained to the resident. The landlord failed to respond to her letter or address the cancellations. This caused time and effort to the resident, who wrote again on 10 October 2022 to raise a complaint about the landlord’s inaction.
In her letter dated 27 October 2022, the resident raised several concerns about the accessibility of her flat in relation to her physical disabilities. She said she had first requested that the landlord install a grab rail and easy-use taps in her bathroom 4 months ago but had heard nothing back. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had due regard for the resident’s individual needs and vulnerabilities. This was unreasonable.
On 3 January 2023 the landlord internally requested an inspection of the resident’s bathroom and kitchen taps, and kitchen cupboards. It completed the inspection on 2 February 2023 and found that the bathroom floor needed replacing and that several bathroom aids and adaptations were needed. It also requested a kitchen component referral for its 2024 / 25 programme and an asbestos survey of both rooms.
It is positive that the landlord inspected the resident’s bathroom and kitchen following her reports. However, it is unclear why it took over 6 months after the landlord was put on notice of the issues for it to do so. This was an unreasonable delay that caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 2 February 2023. She said the surveyor who had inspected told her that she needed to speak with the landlord’s Occupational Therapy department, which had a very long waiting list. She explained that she needed a new bathroom to meet her disability needs, and the surveyor agreed with this. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s letter, which was a further communication failure.
On 6 February 2023 the landlord raised works orders for the asbestos survey and bathroom adaptations. It completed the bathroom adaptations on 10 February and the asbestos survey on 20 February 2023. It is positive that the landlord arranged these works in a timely manner following the surveyor inspection.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer £100 compensation to the resident for the communication failing highlighted in its letter of 10 February 2023. The landlord demonstrated a commitment to putting things right for the resident by arranging all relevant repairs and updating her on the status of ongoing and completed repairs.
Following the asbestos survey, the landlord raised a works order to replace the vinyl flooring in the bathroom on 6 March 2023. The landlord’s records show that this work was completed on 13 April 2023, 27 working days after it was raised. This was slightly outside of the 25 working days that the landlord’s policy said it would aim to complete routine repairs within. Given that all works to the resident’s property had already been subject to significant delays, this was unreasonable.
In its second stage 1 response on 4 December 2023, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about discrimination in relation to capital upgrades. It was reasonable for it to do so. However, the landlord’s explanation of its planned programme was brief and did not address the resident’s queries about how it worked. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain how it decided when a property component was due for an upgrade in consideration of the resident’s concerns about fairness.
It is positive that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities in its stage 2 response and committed to taking these into account when raising repairs in the future. However, the length of time it took for the landlord to do so was unreasonable. The resident had repeatedly referred to her health conditions in her correspondence with the landlord from her initial complaint in 2022. If the landlord had considered the individual needs of the resident at an earlier date, it may have avoided the complaint escalating.
On several occasions throughout the duration of the issue, the resident told the landlord that her mental health was being significantly impacted by delays and resulting stress. The landlord failed to appropriately consider whether the resident needed any further wellbeing support or signpost her to any relevant organisations. This was unreasonable.
The total compensation offered to the resident for the substantive issue was £780, inclusive of the offers at stage 1 and 2 and the £100 offered in between. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £600 to £1000 where there has been a failure which significantly impacted the resident. While the awarded figure is within this range, the amount does not adequately recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the identified failures.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £950 in recognition of these failures, inclusive of the £780 already offered. This amount reflects the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the landlord’s communication failures, delays in resolving the repair issues, and failure to appropriately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s letter dated 27 October 2025. As a result, the landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint at an earlier date. This was unreasonable.
The landlord acknowledged and provided its stage 1 response within 5 working days of receiving the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2024 edition).
The landlord did not meaningfully address the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response. It did not explain the last-minute cancellations as the resident requested, nor did it apologise for or explain its lack of response to her letters. It was positive that the landlord attempted to put things right with its compensation offer, but the £140 offered was not reflective of the overall impact caused to the resident by the delays and communication failings.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response 331 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. During this time, the resident requested an update on several occasions and noted that the delay was impacting her mental health. The landlord did not address the escalation request until its second stage 1 response dated 4 December 2023, in which it said it had closed all previous complaint cases and would need the relevant reference number to escalate. The landlord’s complaint handling appeared disorganised and providing a second stage 1 response in relation to the same issues unnecessarily delayed the process further.
The resident responded to the landlord on 14 December 2023 and confirmed again that she wanted her complaint to be escalated. The landlord did not provide a stage 2 acknowledgement until 22 March 2024, 68 working days later. This was significantly outside of the 5-working day timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. This was inappropriate, particularly given the length of delay that had already occurred.
The landlord said its stage 2 response had been delayed due to a backlog and offered the resident £100 in compensation. Given the significance of the delay and the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident, we do not consider this amount proportionate to the failures identified.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 in recognition of these failures. This is inclusive of the £100 already offered.

Learning

The landlord missed an opportunity to identify learning points to address internally in its complaint responses. It would have been in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes for the landlord to set out areas of learning to the resident within its internal complaints procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We found that some of the landlord’s repair records were unclear and did not detail the nature of the works completed or accurate completion dates. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord did not communicate appropriately with the resident throughout the duration of her complaint. The landlord did not adapt to the resident’s preferred method of communication, instead encouraging her to use other methods such as email. It is important that landlords adapt to meet the needs of their residents, particularly those that are vulnerable.