London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202407303)

Decision
Case ID	202407303
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	13 February 2026

Background

1. The resident moved into the property in May 2023 and on 8 June 2023 told the landlord that the bath‑shower mixer did not work. She said the water would only run very hot or very cold and would not mix. She complained when the landlord proposed removing the mixer and replacing it with pillar taps, as she said the property had been advertised as having a bath‑shower. She also reported that low water pressure and limited hot water meant she could not use either the shower or the bath. The resident told this Service that she had a back condition which prevented her from using the bath safely. However, we have not seen evidence that she made the landlord aware of this or that the landlord noted this in its records.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective bath-shower.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective bath-shower.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord identified in September 2023 that an electric shower was the most appropriate solution, yet it did not install one until December 2024, a delay of around 15 months. The delays continued even after its Stage 2 response on 19 March 2024, when it acknowledged the outstanding issue but still failed to progress the repair. The landlord offered no compensation, did not monitor the repair, and has not evidenced that it considered how the lack of a functioning shower, and limited hot water for bathing, affected the resident’s ability to wash.
6. The landlord acknowledged delays in progressing the resident’s complaint and offered £160 compensation. However, the landlord did not give a full explanation for the significant delay at Stage 1, nor for its departure from its required 2‑stage complaints procedure. It also failed to communicate effectively with the resident or keep her updated, leaving her to chase repeatedly for responses. This meant the compensation did not fully remedy the impact on the resident.

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 13 March 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £650 compensation. This is made up as follows: £450 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about a defective bath-shower. £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It may deduct from this amount the £160 compensation it already offered if it has already paid the resident. 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 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 June 2023	The resident told the landlord her bath–shower was not working as it would not mix hot and cold water. She said the water came through either very hot or very cold.
5 July 2023	The resident complained to the landlord and said she was angry that she has not been able to have a proper shower since she moved in. She said the hot water tank did not produce enough hot water for her to have a bath and the shower did not have sufficient power. She refused the landlord’s suggestion to replace the shower mixer with pillar taps. She said the property was advertised as having a shower and a bath, so the landlord needed to provide a proper shower.
31 July 2023-19 March 2024	The resident called the landlord multiple times to chase the progress of the shower repair. On 19 March 2023 she called the landlord to explain she was very upset at the lack of contact since her complaint and lack of update about the shower. She reminded the landlord that the shower had poor pressure and would not mix cold and hot water. She further added there was also not enough hot water to have a bath.
19 March 2024	The landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. It sent its final response to her the same day and said: It apologised for the delay in issuing a Stage 2 response, attributing this to a backlog. It acknowledged 3 central concerns: extremely low water pressure throughout the bathroom; problems with temperature regulation caused by the cold‑water tank overriding the hot‑water supply; and delays and poor communication about decisions about replacing the shower. It apologised for these failings and said it would raise the matter with its repairs supervisors to arrange a job to address the pressure issues and review next steps for the shower repair. The landlord referred to the repair history, noting it had raised a repair on 8 June 2023, where the operative found that the bath‑shower mixer was unable to function due to low mains pressure and a fault with the diverter valve. It had raised a follow‑on repair and attended on 5 July 2023 to replace the taps but did not complete this as the resident requested a shower as the property had been advertised as having a shower. The landlord accepted it had not returned to the property since that visit and had not communicated next steps. The landlord offered a total of £160 compensation: £60 for complaint‑handling failures, £60 for the resident’s time and effort getting the complaint resolved, and £40 for the late Stage 2 response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told this Service that she remained dissatisfied because the landlord did not install an electric shower until several months after issuing its final response. She said she repeatedly informed the landlord that she had a back condition which prevented her from using the bath safely, as there was nothing to hold on to and she would slip. She explained that the bath‑shower mixer would only run either very hot or very cold and would not mix, leaving her without suitable washing facilities for over a year. She stated that the landlord refused several times to install an electric shower and that she had to chase the issue repeatedly.

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 defective bath-shower.
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident moved into the property in May 2023. The landlord has provided repair records confirming that she reported on 8 June 2023 that the bath‑shower mixer did not work and was either very hot or very cold. The landlord attended the property on 20 June 2023, within its 25‑day repairs target. The landlord’s operative recorded that the diverter valve could not work as a shower because the taps were connected to a gravity‑fed hot water system with low pressure. The operative recommended that the issue should be returned to the voids team and noted that a pump might be needed.
8. Internal landlord correspondence from 29 June 2023 shows that the landlord considered installing a pump but decided against this due to the resident’s concerns about noise, electricity usage, and the limited hot water cylinder capacity. Staff also noted that the system installed during the void period was unsuitable for the property. The landlord raised a repair on 30 June 2023 to replace the bath-shower mixer with pillar taps. The landlord has not provided evidence that it discussed this change with the resident or that she agreed to it. At the appointment, the resident told the landlord the property had been advertised as having a shower.
9. The resident declined the landlord’s suggestion to change to pillar taps. She said she wanted a bath-shower, as the property had been advertised as having a shower. She complained on 5 July 2023. The landlord’s records show she reported that the shower lacked power, and the hot water tank did not produce enough hot water for her to take a bath. The landlord has not provided evidence that it acknowledged or responded to these concerns, despite her chasing for updates on 31 July, 4 August, 8 August and 31 August 2023. This demonstrates poor communication and a failure to engage with the resident about the impact on her ability to wash.
10. The landlord provided us with a plumber’s report from 27 September 2023. This concluded that an electric shower would be the most appropriate option, acknowledging that the existing mixer tap was defective due to pressure imbalance. It also confirmed that installing a pump would not provide a usable shower. Despite reaching this conclusion, the landlord did not install an electric shower until 1 December 2024, 261 working days after identifying it as the most appropriate solution.
11. The landlord spoke to the resident on 19 March 2024. The call notes show it recognised there was extremely low water pressure in the property, affecting both the shower and bath. The landlord accepted during this call that it had not returned to the property since July 2023 and said it would raise the issue with supervisors. Internal emails from the same date show disagreement about whether the landlord could install an electric shower. Further internal notes from 27 May 2024 show the landlord reassigned the repair. Emails from 5 August 2024 incorrectly described that the issue was only that the resident ‘wanted a shower’, despite evidence of pressure and hot water capacity problems. The landlord did not raise a job to install the shower until 19 September 2024. The resident chased again on 7 and 14 October 2024. These records show a lack of ownership and inconsistent handling across different teams. Despite the landlord saying in its stage 2 complaint response on 19 March 2024 that it would arrange a job to address the pressure issue, and review the next steps for the shower repair, the landlord did not put things right until over 8 months later.
12. The resident also reported to this Service that she was unable to use the bath due to a back condition. While we have not been provided with evidence that the resident informed the landlord of this, the landlord equally did not demonstrate that it explored her needs or reassured itself that she had access to an adequate alternative. Its plumber’s report confirms that the hot water cylinder was small and would begin drawing in cold water after 8–10 minutes, which supports the resident’s report of being unable to run a bath. The landlord has not shown that it considered whether she had adequate washing facilities while the complaint remained unresolved. Our remedies guidance says that landlords should take individual circumstances into account when delays affect essential facilities. The failure to do so, combined with the prolonged lack of a working shower, likely caused significant distress and inconvenience.
13. Overall, the landlord failed to progress and complete the repair within a reasonable timeframe. It did not communicate effectively, did not take appropriate ownership of the issue, and did not provide suitable redress. These failings amount to maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Service failure

14. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2022) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
15. The landlord has recorded in a call note on 19 March 2024 that it advised the resident of backlogs with complaints at Stage 2. There is no evidence the landlord sent the resident a formal acknowledgement of her complaint at either Stage 1 or Stage 2. Under the Code, landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and keep residents updated throughout the process. The absence of acknowledgements and the resident’s need to repeatedly chase for updates show that the complaint was not progressed within the required timeframes or in accordance with the Code’s expectations on timely communication.
16. It was good practice for the landlord to contact the resident by phone on 19 March 2024 to discuss her escalation request, and it issued its final response the same day. However, this effectively bypassed Stage 1 of its own complaint procedure. The Code requires landlords to operate a clear, 2‑stage process unless there is a valid reason to deviate and the resident agrees. There is no evidence that the landlord sought or obtained the resident’s consent to skip Stage 1, nor that it recorded any justification for doing so.
17. The landlord acknowledged delays in handling the complaint and offered the resident £160 compensation. While this demonstrated an attempt to put things right, the landlord did not offer a full explanation for its departure from the required 2‑stage procedure. Our remedies guidance notes that redress should be proportionate to the harm caused and accompanied by clear reasons. In this case, the lack of procedural clarity and communication failures represent a service failure that was not fully remedied by the compensation offered.

Learning

18. The landlord should review this case to ensure staff understand the importance of taking clear ownership of repairs, particularly where essential facilities are affected. It should ensure teams communicate effectively with one another, so that disagreements about responsibility do not delay action. The landlord should also strengthen processes for keeping residents updated, acknowledging reports promptly, and recording decisions where proposed solutions change. It should remind staff of the need to explore residents’ individual circumstances, especially where health conditions or limited facilities may increase the impact of delays. The landlord should also review how it assesses and offers redress, in line with our remedies guidance, to ensure compensation reflects the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused when repairs are not completed within reasonable timescales.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord should ensure staff keep clear, accurate and complete records of repair reports, decisions and resident contact. It should also record the rationale for changes to repair plans and evidence any discussions with the resident. Consistent record keeping supports effective case management, avoids delays caused by missing information, and helps demonstrate compliance with policies and the Housing Ombudsman’s expectations.

Communication

20. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The resident had to repeatedly chase for updates on both her complaint and her repair reports. The landlord should ensure staff provide timely acknowledgements, give clear updates, and follow through on commitments. It should also make sure information is shared consistently across teams, so residents receive accurate and coordinated responses. Strengthening communication in this way would help prevent avoidable delay and reduce frustration for residents.