London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202402232)

Decision
Case ID	202402232
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 January 2026

Background

1. The resident has lived in a ground floor flat with the landlord since 16 August 2021.
2. The resident reported issues with her front door to the landlord. She said the door swelled in poor weather, did not fit the frame correctly and sometimes did not open or close. From January 2024 onwards the resident also started reporting a mice issue in the property. The landlord arranged for its pest control contractor to inspect several times. As the year progressed she said the mice were coming from a hole behind the kitchen cabinets.
3. The resident had also raised issues with the condition of the garden at her property from when she first moved in and problems with the boiler which she said affected her ability to heat her property.

What the complaint is about

4. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of issues with the front door.
   2. Reports of a pest issue.
   3. Reports of issues with the boiler and the condition of the garden.
   4. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. reports of issues with the front door.
   2. reports of issues with the boiler and the condition of the garden.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest issue.
7. The landlord reasonably redressed its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Front door

8. The landlord responded to each report of an issue with the door in line with its repairs policy. It completed the repairs recommended by its operatives and used their reports to base its decision to repair rather than replace the door.

Pest issue

9. The landlord complied with its repairs and pest control policy by arranging for pest control to attend and treat the mice issue. However it failed to acknowledge some of its actions had led to delays in effectively treating the issue.

Boiler issue and garden condition

10. The resident raised the boiler and gardens issue in a previous complaint to the landlord. She has since brought this complaint to the Ombudsman and we will investigate this in a separate investigation.

Complaint handling

11. The landlord acknowledged its delay in providing its stage 1 response and offered reasonable redress for this failing.

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	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by not recognising its own actions led to delays in effectively treating the pest issue   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 13 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 April 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about an ongoing mice infestation, explaining that pest control had visited several times but further treatment required the removal of kitchen plinths. She also reported that the front door was defective, swelling in poor weather and not fitting the frame properly. Additionally she disputed the landlord’s responses to complaints she had previously made about her garden and boiler.
24 April 2024	In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it inspected the front door several times and made minor adjustments, confirming it was fit for purpose but agreeing to carry out another inspection. It explained that pest control had attended multiple times since the issue was first reported and it had now arranged to remove the kitchen plinths to allow for further treatment. It also offered £50 compensation for delays in handling the complaint.   It advised it would not comment on the garden or boiler issues as it had already addressed these in a prior complaint.
24 June 2024	The resident disputed the landlord’s explanation about the door and escalated her complaint to stage 2. She also said the mice problem remained unresolved and the landlord’s response to the garden and boiler issues was not appropriate.
11 July 2024	In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it maintained the door was fit for purpose. It explained its attempts to continue treating the mice issue, and said its contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange another appointment. It maintained it would not comment on the garden or boiler issues as it had already done so in a prior complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said the front door issues had persisted for two years, noting gaps between the door and frame, its age of around 20 years, and requesting a replacement. She also reported that the mice problem at the property was still ongoing, and explained her dissatisfaction with the garden and boiler 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	Door repair
Finding	No maladministration

12. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of external doors, frames and locks. The policy says it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours of report, and it aims to complete routine repairs within 25 days.
13. The resident complained that front door was not fit for purpose. She said it was old and did not fit in the frame correctly which led to gaps and draughts. She also said the door swelled in poor weather which had impacted her ability to lock the door or enter her home on several occasions. She said one of the operatives who attended to repair the door said it needed replacing. She wanted it to replace it with a new UPVC door.
14. In response, the landlord said it had attended to each report of issues with the door. While it had carried out some adjustments, ultimately it felt the door was fit for purpose and therefore it would not replace it. It also said it had no evidence that any of its operatives had recommended it be replaced. However, it agreed to inspect the door again to ensure any outstanding issues were rectified.
15. The evidence supports the landlord’s actions. It attended each report about the door within the 25 day routine repair timescale set by its policy. It carried out all range of repairs, including removing a snapped key and adjusting the lock strike plate and screws. These were appropriate as the repairs were its responsibility and nothing in the evidence indicates the operatives who attended believed the door needed replacement.
16. The landlord’s decision not to replace the door was reasonable. No operative recommended replacement, and there was no evidence the door was unsuitable after adjustments. It was good practice to acknowledge the resident’s concerns and agree to a further inspection, which confirmed the door was fit for purpose after more adjustments.
17. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably. It met its repair policy timescales, completed recommended repairs, and based its decision on its operatives’ advice.

Complaint	Mice infestation
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

18. The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 11 July 2024. The resident has told the Ombudsman the mice infestation issue is still ongoing.
19. These further occurrences have not been through the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, the resident needs to raise this with the landlord as a new complaint before the Ombudsman can potentially investigate it.
20. For clarity we will investigate events from April 2023, which was 12 months before the resident raised her complaint, to July 2024 when the landlord issued its stage 2 response. We will also consider if any works it promised at stage 2 happened or not.

What we investigated

21. The landlord’s repairs policy and pest control policy says residents are responsible for dealing with pests in the first instance. The policy says it will intervene in certain circumstances, including if the resident is vulnerable or a resident’s initial treatment has not resolved the issue. The policy also says it is responsible for blocking any holes following pest control treatment.
22. The resident complained that she was dealing with an ongoing issue with mice in her property. She acknowledged that the landlord had arranged for pest control to attend and some treatment had taken place. However she said that pest control needed the landlord to remove some plinths in the kitchen in order to find the access point and complete further treatment, and it had failed to do this. She said the issue was impacting her physical and mental health and the mice were damaging some of her personal items.
23. In response, the landlord said its pest control contractor had complete several inspections and treatments at the resident’s property since she first reported the issue in October 2023. At stage 1 it said the contractor had first requested it remove the kitchen plinths in March 2024, and it would complete this in due course. At stage 2 it said it had tried to remove the plinths and continue pest control treatments but she had not allowed it access on multiple occasions. It said its contractor would contact her directly to arrange future visits.
24. Part of the landlord’s response was reasonable. It followed its repairs and pest control policy by arranging its own contractor after the resident’s attempts were unsuccessful. After its stage 1 response, it tried several times between June and September 2024 to access the property to remove kitchen plinths, which pest control required before continuing treatment. Lack of access affected its ability to remove the plinths and ultimately resolve the issue.
25. However, other parts of its response were inaccurate and unreasonable. The contractor first told the landlord to remove the plinths in January 2024, not March as the landlord stated. The landlord only raised works after the second request in March and failed to acknowledge this two month delay. There is no evidence to show the reason for this delay.
26. The landlord also said it raised works in March and would complete them imminently, but evidence shows it only raised them in June, and the resident had chased the matter in the meantime. It gave no explanation for the three month delay in its stage 2 response. Instead, it focused on access issues from June onwards, which was unreasonable because its own delay contributed to the problem.
27. Overall, the landlord complied with its policy by arranging pest control and was affected by access issues from June. However, its response did not acknowledge its role in the delays by failing to raise works promptly or attempt them in good time after stage 1.

Complaint	Boiler issues and garden condition
Finding	No maladministration

28. The resident’s complaints about boiler issues and garden condition were originally made as part of a different complaint previously made to the landlord. In the complaint being considered here she included the issues again, disputing the landlord’s decisions and explanations about them. The landlord explained it had already considered them and would not do so again.
29. The landlord’s response was reasonable, as it was not obliged to consider the same issues again once they have exhausted its complaint process. The resident has brought the earlier complaint to us and it is currently awaiting investigation. Her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s explanations and decisions regarding the garden and boiler will be considered in that investigation.

Complaint	Complaint Handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

30. The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a two stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt, and stage 2 escalations within 20 working days. It says it can extend the timeframes at both stages by a further 10 working days providing it agrees this with the resident.
31. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
32. The resident raised her complaint on 15 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 27 working days later on 24 April 2024. This exceeded the timeframe set out in its complaints policy and the Code. However, when it acknowledged her complaint it explained that it was experiencing delays and therefore may not be able to respond within 10 working days. Furthermore, it acknowledged the delay in its response, apologised and offered £50 compensation. This was appropriate in light of the delay and the compensation offered was reasonable.
33. The landlord provided its stage 2 response within 13 working days of the resident’s escalation. This was in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord had robust records for its repairs and internal communications.

Communication

35. At times the landlord’s communication with the resident was good where it provided reasonable updates to the resident and explained its reasoning for certain decisions. However, in Spring 2024 it failed to update the resident on its progress in getting the kitchen plinths removed, despite her chasing on multiple occasions. The landlord should ensure it maintains consistent communication with residents, particularly for ongoing issues.