London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202508617)

Decision
Case ID	202508617
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with a solar panel system that runs into the property. He reported a leak in the property from the solar panel system. He later raised a complaint as he said the landlord had delayed in repairing the leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak from the solar panel system.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak from the solar panel system.
   2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak from the solar panel system

4. The landlord initially attended to make the leak safe in line with its repairs policies but delayed in repairing the leak after the resident confirmed it was ongoing. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered compensation but further delayed in completing the repair after its stage 2 response. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns about a financial impact.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord initially failed to respond to all the issues the resident raised in his complaint. It then failed to escalate the complaint on multiple occasions, which significantly delayed the resident being able to escalate his complaint to us.

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 20 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £900 made up as follows: the £540 the landlord offered in its stage 2 response and an additional £160 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the solar panel system £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any of the £540 it offered in its stage 2 response if it can evidence that it has already paid this.	No later than 20 March 2026
3	Specific action The landlord must write to the resident to respond to his concerns about the financial impact of the leak. The landlord must provide us with a copy of this letter.	No later than 20 March 2026
4	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the complaint handling failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its learning.	No later than 20 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 December 2024	The resident raised a complaint which included the landlord’s delay in repairing a leak to the solar panel system. He said a contractor had turned off the system, but the leak continued and he had to collect the liquid in a bucket.
30 December 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response which did not refer to, or set out its position on, the solar panel leak.   The resident escalated his complaint. He said the solar panel leak was unresolved and the landlord had not provided an update.
11 February and 25 March 2025	The resident again told the landlord the leak was unresolved and requested an escalation of his complaint. On 25 March 2025 he stated that he wanted an update and compensation.
28 March 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response. It acknowledged it was unacceptable that the resident had to collect the liquid in a bucket and said a part was required for the repair. It said it would seek updates on the repair and ensure it was completed.   The resident told the landlord he was frustrated with the lack of resolution and communication. He said the issue had caused him stress and had a financial impact.
24 April 2025	The resident escalated his complaint as he said there was a lack of updates, inconsistencies in the landlord’s responses, and the leak continued.
28 May 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response. It apologised and explained the reason for the delay and acknowledged its lack of oversight of works. It confirmed it was reviewing a contractor’s quote and would monitor the completion of the repair. It offered £540 compensation made up of £240 for distress, £240 for inconvenience and £60 for time and effort.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us because he said the landlord had not repaired the leak. He wanted the landlord to communicate with him effectively, repair the leak and pay increased compensation.
On or around 19 August 2025	The landlord said it repaired the solar panel leak. The resident has also confirmed this to us.

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	Reports of a leak from the solar panel system
Finding	Maladministration

6. When the resident first reported the leak on 10 November 2024, the landlord did not record its severity. It responded by raising repair works, in line with its repairs policy which confirmed it was responsible for solar panel repairs. On 12 November 2024 it raised works and told the resident a contractor would attend within 5 working days.
7. A contractor attended on 16 November 2024, within the landlord’s repairs policy timescale of 20 days for routine repairs, and the timescale it agreed to the resident. It made the leak safe and identified that it needed to replace some pipework. The resident said the contractor told him the leak would be repaired within a week.
8. The landlord failed to respond when the resident reported that the leak was ongoing on 18 December 2024. Between November 2024 and March 2025, it had a lack of oversight of the repair works, and poor communication with its contractor about the follow-on works required. It also failed to respond to the resident’s multiple requests for updates.
9. The landlord contacted its contractor in March and April 2025 to request updates. Its records suggest poor handling and oversight of its contractor’s quotes contributed to the delays in completing the follow-on works between March and May 2025.
10. The landlord provided the resident with some updates between March and April 2025. However, it did not offer any interim solutions while the leak persisted. On 20 May 2025 the landlord told the resident it was reviewing a contractor’s quote, which the contractor said it had originally submitted in November 2024. It is unclear how long this process took or why there were delays.
11. In its complaint responses in March and May 2025 the landlord provided an update and explanation for some of the delays but did not offer any compensation until its stage 2 response. Its complaint responses did not provide a timescale for completion and did not set out any learning.
12. Despite the landlord’s assurances it would not take long to review the quote in May 2025, and its promise to monitor completion of the repair at stage 2, it did not complete the repair until around 19 August 2025. This was significantly outside of its repairs policy timescale for routine repairs. The landlord’s repairs records did not evidence the date it completed the repair, though the resident has confirmed it did so.
13. The resident had to repeatedly request updates. In April 2025, he raised concerns to the landlord about a potential health impact of the leak. He said the solar panel did not work and that this caused his utility bills to increase.
14. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to put things right in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord made some attempt to put things right, but its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified. We have ordered the landlord to respond to the resident’s reports of a financial impact.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

15. The landlord’s complaints policy timescales were compliant with the Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code). The landlord issued its initial stage 1 response within its complaints policy timescale. However, it did not address the solar panel leak and failed to acknowledge that it remained unresolved.
16. The landlord repeatedly failed to escalate the resident’s complaint as requested, preventing progression to stage 2 and did not provide him with our details. This was not in line with the Code and delayed the resident’s access to us.
17. When the landlord logged the resident’s complaint of 25 March 2025, it would have been in line with the Code for it to have issued a stage 2 response. This is because the leak formed part of the resident’s complaint of 18 December 2024 and it had an opportunity to set out its position in its response of 30 December 2024. That it instead issued a stage 1 response, further delayed the resident’s opportunity to escalate his complaint to us.
18. The landlord acknowledged and sent its second stage 1 response within its complaints policy timescales. Following the resident’s comments on 28 March 2025, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered escalating the complaint in line with the Code.
19. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of 24 April 2025 in 3 working days, in line with its complaints policy timescales. It responded 22 working days after the escalation which was 2 working days outside of its complaints policy timescales but in line with the Code.
20. The landlord’s complaint handling was obstructive. It did not acknowledge any failures, offer redress or identify any learning from its complaint handling. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to put things right in line with our remedies guidance for a failure that it did not acknowledge or put right, including compensation and learning orders.

Learning

21. Though the landlord identified the reason for some delays, such as its contractor not being able to access a system, it did not set out any learning in its complaint responses. We have ordered the landlord to set out any learning from its complaint handling failures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s complaint record keeping was good. Its repair records did not include all repair completion dates which impacted our ability to understand when it completed repairs in line with its repairs policy.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication was poor. It failed to update the resident, respond to his concerns, or escalate his complaint for significant periods of time, despite his multiple requests for an update.