London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202231407)

Decision
Case ID	202231407
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	5 January 2026

Background

1. The resident reported a leak from the kitchen sink to the landlord. She reported that this damaged her kitchen flooring, kitchen unit, and her earphone. The resident complained to the landlord about the length of time taken to rectify the damage. She said the landlord committed to replace her flooring but that this has not happened. The resident has mobility issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and resultant damage.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and resultant damage.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found maladministration because although the landlord apologised and offered compensation, this did not adequately remedy the complaint. The flooring works remained outstanding and continue to be unresolved. The landlord has not shown it has considered the resident’s mobility issues. There were also delays in completing the kitchen unit repair, and the landlord failed to compensate for the additional 2-month delay. Record keeping throughout the case was poor, and there was no evidence to show that it had given appropriate insurance advice. Together, these failings show that the landlord did not manage the case reasonably. This likely caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident.
7. The landlord significantly delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2. The landlord did not keep the resident updated or give any timescales for the delay. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay which was an appropriate remedy.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 02 February 2026
2	Inspection and scope confirmation The landlord must write to the resident to confirm its position on whether it will replace the resident’s flooring on a like‑for‑like basis, taking into account any relevant policy commitments and its previous assurances to the resident. If the landlord considers that a further inspection is required to reach a clear and accurate position, it must complete this inspection within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Following the inspection (or, if no inspection is required, following its review), the landlord must write to the resident with the outcome, setting out its decision and the reasons for it. The landlord must also provide this Service with a copy of the letter issued to the resident.	02 February 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £560 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its failings. The landlord may deduct from this the £210 compensation offered in its stage 2 response if this has already been paid. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.	02 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
1	Compensation recommendation If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £100 for complaint handling as agreed in the final complaint response.  Our finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.	No later than 02 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 July 2022	The resident complained about a flood from her kitchen sink that damaged her flooring and kitchen cupboard. She said the shock of seeing the flood caused her earphone to fall out and become damaged. She said she had experienced leaks previously that damaged her flooring. She reported mobility issues and that the damaged floor had caused her to slip.
12 July 2022	The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would issue an outcome by 22 July 2022.
18 July 2022	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It explained that it had raised a repair on 11 July 2022 for an operative to refit the kitchen sink waste trap following an emergency report. It confirmed it had arranged an inspection for 24 October 2022 to assess water damage to the kitchen unit and flooring. It apologised for its poor communication. It said it would keep in contact and provide compensation once all repairs were completed.
13 February 2023-30 March 2023	The resident emailed the landlord and asked it to escalate her complaint. She explained the landlord had not attended the appointment booked for her flooring on 8 February 2023. The resident chased for a response on 30 March 2023.
3 April 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It apologised for the delay which it said was due to staff absence. It explained there were backlogs with responding to complaints.
2 August 2023	The landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. The resident confirmed repairs to her flooring remained outstanding.
7 August 2023	The landlord provided the resident with its final response. It: Confirmed that it raised follow on works after inspecting the damaged kitchen cabinet on 24 October 2022. It completed works to the kitchen units and worktops on 24 January 2023. It acknowledged delays in completing the repairs, particularly the failure to assess the kitchen floor when initially asked. It explained the operative who assessed the kitchen cabinet should have assessed the flooring. It confirmed it had raised a new job to measure and replace the kitchen flooring as necessary. The landlord confirmed that it increased its stage 1 compensation offer from £150 to £200 after the resident queried the amount. It also accepted there had been an error in processing the compensation payment and apologised for the delay in crediting it to the rent account. It noted that it missed or did not complete repair appointments, including the 8 February 2023 appointment to measure the kitchen floor. The landlord had tried to attend the next day. The resident explained that, due to her study commitments, she was only available for appointments on Wednesday. It recognised that communication with the resident was poor, and that long periods passed with no response, partly due to staff sickness. It also acknowledged that the resident had not received the 12 July 2023 letter advising that the flooring work order had been closed due to no access. The landlord accepted that it had not effectively managed the repairs or communicated appropriately. It apologised for its service failures and confirmed it had raised a new work order for the flooring. It also confirmed that the resident’s insurance claim regarding earphones had been rejected. In recognition of the delays, missed appointments, and complaint handling failures, the landlord awarded £310 compensation at stage 2, in addition to the £200 previously offered at stage 1.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident explained she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the complaint as the landlord had not replaced her flooring. She said she believed the landlord should replace her slate flooring like for like. She was unhappy that the landlord’s insurer had rejected her compensation claim for her earphone.

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 of a leak and resultant damage.
Finding	Maladministration

 

8. The resident has referred to previous leaks that had damaged her flooring. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. This Service does not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to July 2022. This investigation considers only the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made on 11 July 2022.
9. The landlord’s records note that the resident has mobility issues. In her email of 11 July 2022, the resident reported slipping due to the damaged kitchen flooring. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
10. The landlord attended within 24 hours to isolate the leak, meeting its emergency repair timeframe. The resident reported that the leak damaged her flooring, kitchen unit, and her earphone.
11. The landlord delayed repairing the kitchen unit after the leak. It raised an inspection order on 12 July 2022, but the repair record shows this covered only the kitchen unit and not the flooring. Although the landlord said an inspection of the flooring had been booked for 24 October 2022, it has not provided evidence that this took place. The landlord recorded the repair as completed on 20 January 2023, significantly exceeding the landlord’s target of completing routine repairs within an average of 25 calendar days. On 16 November 2022 the landlord offered £200 compensation on the basis that it booked the work. However, as the repair remained outstanding for a further 2 months after this point, the offer did not fully reflect the impact of the total duration of the delay.
12. In its stage 1 response on 18 July 2022, the landlord said it asked an operative booked for 24 October 2022 to inspect both the kitchen unit and the flooring. However, the repair record shows the job was raised only for the kitchen unit, and the landlord has provided no evidence that the flooring was inspected on that date. The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord to explain that no one had measured the flooring, and on 3 December 2022 the landlord said it had raised a new job for this.
13. The landlord arranged an appointment for 8 February 2023, but the operative did not attend. It attempted to attend the next day, when the resident had already explained she would not be available due to study commitments. The resident continued to chase the flooring repair during February 2023 and confirmed during a call on 2 August 2023 that it remained outstanding. In its stage 2 response on 7 August 2023 the landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised for poor communication and raised further works, offering £210 for distress, delays, and the missed appointment. This was appropriate as a partial remedy, but the landlord had still not inspected or replaced the flooring.
14. The landlord raised a further flooring repair on 31 August 2023, with internal notes saying any repairs must be ‘like for like’. This aligned with the resident’s understanding that any replacement would match her existing slate flooring. The landlord marked the job as completed on 6 November 2023, yet the landlord has provided no evidence of what work, if any, it carried out. The resident confirmed the landlord did not replace the flooring and said it had proposed using lino. Internal emails during August 2024 show uncertainty amongst landlord staff about whether the work had been completed, indicating poor record‑keeping that likely contributed to delays and confusion.
15. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it will repair damaged kitchen flooring coverings. The policy does not require like‑for‑like replacement of resident‑installed coverings. Offering a standard specification, such as lino, would therefore have been reasonable. By failing to clarify this at an early stage, particularly after internal notes referred to a like‑for‑like replacement, the landlord provided information inconsistent with its own policy. It did not correct this or provide clear written updates, despite repeatedly telling the resident that it would measure and replace the flooring. This ambiguity, coupled with significant delay and late changes of position, caused avoidable confusion, distress and inconvenience.
16. We have seen later correspondence relating to a proposed kitchen renewal in 2024, during which the landlord offered to install lino as part of that process. As these discussions took place after the final response, and the landlord has not had the opportunity to address them through its complaints procedure, they fall outside the scope of this investigation. What is within scope is the landlord’s commitment to measure and replace the flooring, which it did not complete.
17. The landlord committed in its 7 August 2023 final response to measure and replace the flooring. The repair was still not completed and was incorrectly recorded as complete by 6 November 2023. The compensation offered at stage 2 therefore did not reflect the full extent of the delay or the impact of the continued uncertainty. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the flooring repair demonstrated delays, poor communication, inconsistent information and inadequate record keeping.
18. In relation to the damaged earphone, it was appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to its public liability insurance process. We can only assess the landlord’s actions or omissions and cannot review or overturn the insurer’s decision, as the insurer is a separate organisation. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of clear communication with the resident about the claims process, nor records of any contact with the insurer. In the absence of such records, we cannot assess whether the landlord supported the resident to navigate the process or fulfilled its responsibilities in a timely and transparent manner.
19. In relation to the flooring, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed the risk presented by the damaged floor in light of the resident’s mobility needs, or that it prioritised the repair accordingly. It is also unclear what, if any, advice the landlord gave the resident about insurance options for the flooring. The landlord should have kept clear records of its decision making and communicated this with the resident. Taken together, the lack of urgency in addressing a risk linked to a known vulnerability, and the poor record keeping and communication around insurance, amounts to service failure.
20. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the leak and resultant damage amounted to maladministration. The landlord committed to monitoring repairs through to completion. While the £200 offered at stage 1 for the kitchen unit delay was reasonable for that element alone at that time, the landlord’s overall response, particularly in relation to the flooring, fell below its own service standards and the expected level of timely and accurate communication. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for action. The £210 offered at stage 2 did not fully reflect the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failings. We have ordered the landlord to pay a further £350 compensation. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings addressed by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time complied with the Code (2022), including the definition of a complaint and the required response times. It acknowledged the resident’s initial complaint promptly and issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days, in line with its policy and the Code.
22. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 26 November 2022, 31 December 2022, 13 February 2023 and 30 March 2023. The landlord attempted to resolve the complaint on 28 November 2022 by raising a new job for the flooring and increasing the compensation. On 4 January 2023 it asked the resident to explain why she wished to escalate the complaint and noted potential backlogs.
23. On 9 December 2022 the landlord said it would credit £200 compensation to the resident’s rent account. When the resident reported on 31 December 2022 that this had not happened, the landlord apologised and explained the delay was due to the compensation amount being amended. Given the short duration of the delay and the landlord’s corrective action, this was reasonable.
24. The landlord next responded on 3 April 2023, apologising for the delay and explaining this was due to staff absence. It confirmed escalation but did not give a timescale for its stage 2 response, despite acknowledging ongoing backlogs.
25. On 2 August 2023 the landlord called the resident to clarify the outstanding issues, which was good practice and consistent with its complaints procedure. It acknowledged the escalation the same day and said it would respond by 9 August 2023. It issued its stage 2 decision on 7 August 2023.
26. Under its complaints policy, the landlord should issue a final response within 20 working days of the escalation, or provide an explanation and a revised timescale within a further 10 working days. Instead, it took 122 working days to respond, without keeping contact or agreeing any extended timescale with the resident. This was a significant service failure that likely caused avoidable inconvenience and distress.
27. The landlord apologised and awarded £100 compensation for its stage 2 delays. Given the length of the delay and the lack of communication, this was a reasonable and proportionate remedy. The amount of £100 is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

28. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the situation was poor. Inadequate record keeping around the flooring significantly contributed to lengthy delays and created unnecessary confusion for both staff and the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord kept poor records throughout the repairs process. It could not evidence the letter it said it sent on 12 July 2023 about no access. This gap in its records likely compounded delays by preventing it from reliably tracking what information it had shared with the resident. It also failed to keep accurate notes of repair visits, job outcomes, and discussions about the flooring specification. These record keeping failures undermined the landlord’s ability to manage the repairs effectively and contributed to ongoing confusion and likely frustration for the resident.

Communication

30. The landlord communicated inconsistently and unclearly throughout the repairs. It gave conflicting information about the flooring and did not clearly explain missed or rearranged appointments. It also failed to keep the resident informed about progress or evidence that it provided clear guidance on the insurance process. These communication failures left the resident without reliable information and likely caused avoidable frustration.