London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202443457)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom flat on the 10th floor of a block of flats. Her daughter suffers from chronic asthma. The resident has raised several concerns to the landlord since January 2025 about repairs in the block and her property, as well reporting pests and an antisocial behaviour (ASB) incident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs following a leak into the property.
   2. Repairs to the communal front door.
   3. Repairs to the communal lifts.
   4. Reports of pests in the building.
   5. A report of ASB.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak into the property.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lifts.
   4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests in the building.
   5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a report of ASB.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak into the property

6. The landlord has not carried out repairs to the property in line with its policy timescales. The landlord accepted it should have acted more promptly and offered compensation during its complaints process, however, its failure to relocate the resident and start repairs for several months had a significant impact on her and her family.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door

7. The landlord did not carry out repairs to the communal front door within its policy timescale.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lifts

8. Although there have been numerous reports that the lifts in the building were not working, the landlord’s records show it carried out repairs within its repairs policy timescales.

The landlord’s handling of reports of pests in the building

9. The landlord took no action to address the matter as per its pest control policy. The resident made subsequent reports to the landlord, but the landlord still failed to address the issue.

The landlord’s handling of a report of ASB

10. The resident reported an ASB incident to the landlord, but it failed to investigate it or respond to her complaints about the matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling

11. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in line with its policy timescales. Its failure to address each of the specific complaints made by the resident was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This was inappropriate as it led to some of the resident’s complaints not being answered.

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.

12. On 27 January 2025 the resident told the landlord there was a leak into the property from the building’s sprinkler system. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend an emergency out of hours repair such as a leak within 4 hours and make the situation safe. The landlord’s plumber attended within its emergency repair policy timescale to stop the leak. It was not recorded by the landlord how much damage the leak had done to the property when it was stopped.
13. The resident emailed the landlord later on 27 January 2025. She said her daughter had severe asthma, and she was concerned the water damage following the leak would cause damp and mould in the property.
14. On 28 January 2025 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was not happy with the landlord’s response to the report of the leak into the property.
15. The landlord’s electrician attended the property on 29 January 2025 and confirmed the electrics were safe following the leak. The landlord’s repairs policy states that for emergency works that pose an immediate danger to residents, the landlord will attend within 24 hours. On the basis the landlord knew there was potential for the electrics to have been damaged by the leak 2 days before, it is unreasonable that it failed to attend within the policy timescale of 24 hours.
16. On 30 January 2025 the landlord’s staff carried out repairs to the sprinkler system pipes. This was within the timescale for follow-on repairs, which the landlord’s policy states should be completed within 20 days.
17. The landlord’s insurance team inspected the resident’s property on 5 February 2025. The appointed insurance loss adjuster’s assessment report sent to the landlord on 10 February 2025 said the leak caused damage to ceilings, floorings and walls throughout the property. They said repairs were needed to remove flooring, skirting boards, architraves and ceilings to allow the property to dry following the leak.
18. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 February 2025 and said there was mould in the utility cupboard following the leak.
19. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk such as damp and mould, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. It must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
20. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will assess damp and mould reports within 20 days. Any remedial works identified should be recorded and raised within 10 days of the assessment.
21. On 14 February 2025 the landlord sent a response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process. The landlord said its insurance team was assessing the damage caused by the leak and they would contact her about a temporary relocation while it carried out repairs. The landlord did not say what repairs were required, nor did it provide a timescale for when it would contact her about the relocation or when the repairs would start.
22. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 February 2025. She said mould had spread throughout the property. The landlord carried out a mould wash to the affected areas on 28 February 2025. This was within the 20-day response timeframe as per the landlord’s damp and mould policy from the date the resident first reported mould on 11 February 2025.
23. On 4 March 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It reiterated it would arrange temporary accommodation for her due to the repairs needed following the leak. The landlord apologised and offered £90 compensation for its failure to recognise the impact of the situation when there was a vulnerable member of the household, and the distress and inconvenience caused this caused.
24. The landlord’s complaint response did not tell the resident when she would be relocated or what repairs were required. Given the extent of the time that had passed since the initial leak and the worsening conditions the resident had experienced, it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to set out how it would resolve the situation as part of its final complaint response.
25. Between April and October 2025, the resident contacted the landlord numerous times to ask what arrangements were being put in place to re-locate her while it carried out repairs to the property. She updated the landlord to say there was damp and mould in several rooms. The landlord told the resident it was waiting for its insurance team to arrange the relocation and repairs. The landlord did notinspect the property to establish the extent of the mould, nor did it carry out any further mould treatment.
26. The resident was moved into temporary accommodation on 9 November 2025. She was initially told by the landlord this would be until 5 January 2026. The landlord told her on 5 December 2025 that repair works had yet to be started. It said the bulk of the work would start in January 2026 and her stay in temporary accommodation was likely to be extended until the end of February 2026.
27. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord initially responded promptly to the reports of a leak and mould in the resident’s property. However, the timeline of this complaint shows the landlord failed to carry out the remedial repairs identified from subsequent inspections within a reasonable timeframe. In its final complaint response, the landlord offered £90 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident up to March 2025. Work to begin the repairs was only made possible by the landlord around 9 months after the leak occurred.
28. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
29. The compensation offered by the landlord was for its failing to account for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the vulnerabilities present within the household. This offer may have been proportionate given the landlord’s timely response to that point. However, the offer was significantly below what was necessary to put things right given the length of time taken to meaningfully improve the situation, the poor communication with lack of updates, and worsening living conditions that subsequently occurred, which included damp and mould. These failures were compounded by the knowledge the landlord had of the vulnerabilities present in the family.
30. The landlord’s delay to carry out repairs and relocate the resident together with its inability to provide redress in the 6 months after the stage 2 response, leads to a determination of severe maladministration in its handling of repairs following a leak in the property.
31. The landlord is ordered to pay £1,200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This amount is calculated in line with our remedies guidance and reflects there has been a significant failure and impact on the resident.

32. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 January 2025 and said the building’s communal front door had been broken for 2 weeks. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for the maintenance of communal doors and entrances. The policy goes on to state the landlord should respond to a report of a defective front door within one working day.
33. On 28 January 2025 the resident complained the door had not been repaired.
34. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2025. It said the front door repair had been referred to a specialist locksmith. The landlord did not provide a timescale for when the door would be repaired.
35. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 February 2025, and the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to her on 4 March 2025. It reiterated the matter had been referred to a specialist locksmith. Again, the landlord did not provide any timescale for when the door would be repaired.
36. On 8 May 2025 a locksmith repaired the communal front door.
37. The evidence shows the landlord took over 3 months to repair the front door following the matter being raised by the resident. Although the landlord had to refer the matter to a specialist locksmith, the time taken to conduct a repair was unreasonable given the landlord had a targeted response time of one day for repairs to front door as per its repair policy timescale.
38. Furthermore, the landlord also failed to communicate effectively about the progress of the repair as it did not provide the resident with timescales for when the repair would be completed in its complaint responses.
39. The landlord’s failures lead to a determination of maladministration in its handling repairs to the communal front door. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its delays repairing the door. This amount has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

What we have not considered

40. The resident told us she suffered from stress fractures due to climbing stairs when the lifts were not in service. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. 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 have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by a failing on its part.

What we have considered

41. The landlord’s repair records show that between 4 December 2023 and 31 December 2024 its contractor repaired the 2 lifts in the resident’s buildings on 14 occasions. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for maintaining communal lifts in the building. It aims to carry out routine repairs to lifts within 20 calendar days. The repairs were carried out within the landlord’s policy timescale on each occasion.
42. On 27 January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord and said the lifts were often breaking down, and she had to climb 10 flights of stairs to get to her property. The resident sent a complaint to the landlord the following day about its handling of lift repairs. The landlord’s referred the issue with the lifts to its contractor. There is no record of when the contractor inspected the lifts, but the landlord’s records say they ordered parts to carry out repairs.
43. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 14 February 2025. The landlord said its contractor was waiting for parts to complete repairs to the lifts and it would do so by 21 February 2025.
44. Repairs were carried out by the landlord’s contractor on 18 and 20 February 2025 and they said the lifts were left in service.
45. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 February 2025 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
46. The contractor completed further repairs to the lifts on 22 and 24 February 2025. The repairs were within the landlord’s policy timescale of 20 working days.
47. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 March 2025. It confirmed the lifts had been repaired.
48. The landlord’s records show there have been 22 further repairs to the lifts between March and November 2025.
49. In summary, although there have been numerous reports of faults with the building’s lifts, they have been repaired and left in service within the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. The landlord’s initial complaint response provided the resident with a timescale for when the lifts would be repaired, and it met its obligations. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to communal lifts.

50. On 29 January 2025 the resident complained to the landlord there were rats in the building. The landlord’s pest control policy states it is responsible for dealing with reports of pests. The policy does not give a timescale for when the landlord will take action to address reports of pests.
51. The landlord replied to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process on 14 February 2025. The landlord said it had no record of pests being reported in the building prior to her complaint. It asked for further information on where she had seen pests so it could investigate the matter.
52. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 February 2025. She said there had been numerous reports of pests in the building, including on residents’ balconies, although she did not specify when these incidents occurred.
53. On 4 March 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord said it had requested further information from the resident on where she saw the pests, but she did not respond. The landlord said she should report any incidents regarding pests to its contact centre.
54. Although the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint claimed it had not received details of where she had seen pests, the evidence shows she had provided some of this information on 21 February 2025. It would be reasonable to assume it was able to take action on the basis of what it knew.
55. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 May 2025 and said there had been a rat in her property. The landlord did not reply to the resident, but it recorded on 29 May 2025 that it had investigated reports of pests in the building. The landlord said the pest issue was due to residents leaving rubbish outside their flats, despite it asking them not to.
56. There is no evidence the landlord took further action to investigate pests in the resident’s property or to prevent pests being in the building.
57. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 July 2025 and reported there were rats in the building again. The landlord replied to her the following day and said it would investigate the matter. There is no evidence the landlord took any action following this, and the resident told us in November 2025 the issue has yet to be resolved.
58. In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint was reasonable because it required further information on where she had seen pests in the building in order for it to respond appropriately. The evidence shows the resident then provided the information of pest activity both inside her property and within the wider building, but the landlord’s actions were limited.
59. Although the landlord provided some explanation for the cause of pests within the wider building, it has not demonstrated it has been proactive to tackle, investigate or control pests that were present on the basis of the resident’s further reports.
60. The landlord’s pest control policy does not give a timescale for when it will take action to address pest reports, but it is unreasonable that it took 4 months for the landlord to initially take any action regarding this matter, and that no action has been taken regarding subsequent reports.
61. The landlord’s failures lead to a determination of maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the building. The landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord is also ordered to arrange inspection of the building and carry out any proactive works to tackle any identified pest issue in line with its policy.

62. On 27 January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord and said she had been a victim of ASB in the previous fortnight from people in the building. She provided a crime reference number given to her when she referred the matter to the police. The resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the ASB incident the following day.
63. The landlord defines ASB as unacceptable behaviours that can affect the resident’s quality of life. This includes criminal behaviour, intimidation or threatening behaviour, and misuse of communal or public areas. The landlord’s ASB policy states reported cases will be logged and assessed within 3 working days. The policy adds the landlord will agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated on the actions being taken.
64. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 14 February 2025. It did not refer to the complaint she had made about its handling of ASB, but it did say it would contact her to arrange a meeting to discuss the matters she raised.
65. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 February 2025. She said the landlord had told her that week it would not investigate her ASB report due to the lengthy process involved. The landlord has not provided any evidence about contact it made with the resident about the ASB report, or that it investigated the matter.
66. On 4 March 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. Although the landlord said the resident had complained about its handling of her ASB report, it did not provide any further information about what had happened, what it had done and did not address the complaint. The landlord has not provided us with any evidence to show it investigated the resident’s ASB report following its stage 2 complaint response or responded to further reports the resident has told us she has made.
67. The evidence shows that the resident complained to the landlord about the ASB issue the day after reporting it. Although this gave the landlord little opportunity to respond to the report before she complained, it failed to carry out an investigation into the ASB report as per its policy process, nor did it address the matter in its complaint responses.
68. The landlord’s failure to follow its policy leads to a determination of maladministration in its handling of the resident’s report of ASB. The landlord is ordered to pay £300 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to investigate the ASB report. This amount has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance. The landlord is also ordered to contact the resident and conduct a full investigation into her ASB report as per its policy process.

69. The landlord’s complaints policy states it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at stage 1 and send a full response to the matters raised within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the complaint is escalated to stage 2 the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, and it should send a full response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Code.
70. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 January 2025, within its policy timeframe.
71. On 14 February 2025 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. Although this was within its policy timescale, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of her report of ASB. This was not in line with the Code, which states the landlord must address all points raised in its complaint response.
72. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 21 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 February 2025.
73. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 March 2025. The landlord’s response was within the timescale allowed by its policy, but again it did not address the resident’s complaint about its handling of ASB.
74. In summary, the landlord followed its policy timescales in responding to the resident’s complaints, but it did not address the complaints she raised about its handling of her ASB reports.
75. The failure to address all of the issues raised by the resident as part of her formal complaint leads to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its inability to provide a resolution to her complaint. This amount calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

76. The landlord’s records were sufficient for us to investigate the matters raised in the resident’s complaint.

Communication

77. There were periods where the landlord was aware repairs were required to the building and the property, but it did not contact the resident and provide updates on when the repairs would be carried out. This lack of communication contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and is reflected in the compensation orders we have made. The landlord should look for opportunities to draw learning from this complaint to inform improved customer service going forward.