London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202523927)

Decision
Case ID	202523927
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

1. The resident, who lives on the second floor of a flat block, complained to the landlord about a faulty lift and asked for the repair to be completed and for compensation. The landlord said it was awaiting a repair start date. it offered temporary rehousing in the interim. She escalated the complaint as the lift remained unrepaired and raised further issues about her intercom and waste in communal areas. The landlord reiterated that it was still awaiting a start date and it apologised for the inconvenience.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The faulty lift.
   2. Reports of a faulty intercom and waste in the communal areas.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlords handling of reports of a faulty lift.
   2. Service failure in the landlords handling of reports of a faulty intercom and waste in the communal areas.
   3. No maladministration in the landlords handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The lift

4. The landlord took reasonable steps throughout and the delays were due to external supply issues and later identified faults. There is no indication of inaction during the repair.

The intercom and waste

5. The landlord did not address the issue in its final complaint response, leaving it unresolved.

The complaint

6. The landlord’s stage 1 response was 6 working days late, but it apologised and informed the resident of the delay. The landlord met timescales at stage 2.

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 in light of its failure to log the resident’s waste and intercom complaints. 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 27 February 2026
2	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to ask whether she wishes to make a new complaint about the faulty intercom and the waste in the communal areas. If necessary, it must then investigate her concerns through its complaints process. Evidence of its contact and discussion must be provided by the due date. If the landlord completes its internal complaints process and the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome, she can bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.	No later than 27 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 May 2025	The resident complained about a faulty communal lift. She asked the landlord to complete the repair and offer compensation.
27 May 2025	The landlord responded to the complaint. It apologised for the time taken and said it was waiting for a date for the lift works. It confirmed it had offered to rehouse the resident, which she declined.
30 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint because the lift repairs remained outstanding and she was seeking compensation. She also raised concerns about waste management and a faulty intercom.
27 August 2025	The landlord responded to the escalated complaint. It said it was still waiting for a date for the lift works and apologised for the inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us. She told us the lift repair was completed, but its outage had caused inconvenience and affected her back, as she struggled to use the stairs. She said the landlord did not respond to her reports about a faulty intercom and waste management problems. She is seeking compensation and wants the landlord to improve its communication when further issues arise.

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 reports of a faulty lift.
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

7. The resident told the Ombudsman that while the lift was not working, using the stairs affected her back. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.

What we have investigated

8. In May 2025, the resident complained to the landlord that the lift was out of service. The landlord explained that the managing agent was responsible and said repairs would begin once parts arrived. It offered temporary rehousing, which the resident declined due to family circumstances. Records show the lift had been out of service in May 2025 and required significant repairs due to extensive damage.
9. In July 2025, the resident escalated her complaint as the lift remained inoperative and asked the landlord to consider compensation. In August 2025, the landlord said it was still awaiting a confirmed repair date from the managing agent, apologised, and repeated its offer of temporary rehousing.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for lift repairs. It aims to complete standard lift repairs within 20 working days, and more complex repairs within 40 working days.
11. Internal correspondence shows the delays occurred because the contractor was waiting for parts and identified additional repairs once work began. The records confirm the lift was repaired on 8 September 2025, meaning it was out of service for around 4 months. This exceeded the landlord’s repair policy timeframes. While the repair was outstanding, the landlord regularly chased the contractor for updates, escalated the issue, and stressed the importance of completing the work due to its impact on residents. In its first complaint response it provided contact details for both the person overseeing the lift repairs, and an officer whom the resident could contact if she decided to take up the temporary accommodation offer.
12. The landlord did not meet its repair policy to complete the lift repair within 40 working days for complex repairs. However, the evidence shows that it took reasonable steps to manage the repair. It sought regular updates from the contractor, monitored progress, and acknowledged the impact on the resident
13. The evidence clearly shows the delays were primarily due to supply issues outside the landlord’s direct control and the discovery of additional faults during the repair. While temporary accommodation may have involved its own inconveniences, in the absence of a quick resolution the landlord acted reasonably by offering it to the resident to reduce the impact.
14. The loss of use of the lift for several months undoubtedly caused significant inconvenience and frustration. Nonetheless, nothing in the evidence suggests the landlord or its contractors missed any clear opportunities to resolve the repair earlier. As there is no evidence the repair issue was due to any specific action or inaction by the landlord and it took reasonable steps to resolve the repair, there are no grounds on which the landlord was obliged to consider providing compensation.

Complaint	The landlords handling of reports of a faulty intercom and waste in the communal areas.
Finding	Service failure

15. In her escalated complaint in August 2025, the resident reported that the communal intercom was faulty and that her key fob was no longer working. She also raised concerns about waste management in the communal areas, stating that excessive rubbish was being left inappropriately and that this had led to pests. The landlord did not address these concerns in its final complaint response. The resident later told the Ombudsman that she remained dissatisfied because these issues were not acknowledged, the intercom fault remained unresolved, and the waste management concerns persisted.
16. Although the resident did not raise these issues in her initial complaint, the landlord should still have addressed in its final response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that when new issues are raised after the stage 1 response has been issued the landlord must log them as a new complaint and address them separately. The landlord did not explain this in its final complaint response, and there is no other evidence of it telling the resident it would do so. Accordingly, these issues went unaddressed.

Complaint	Complaint handling.
Finding	No maladministration

17. The landlord operates a 2‑stage formal complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. These timescales are in line with the Code.
18. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 2 May 2025. On 15 May 2025 it apologised for the delay and told the resident it required more time to respond. It sent its stage 1 reply on 27 May 2025, which was 16 working days after acknowledgement.
19. The resident asked to escalate the complaint because she was unhappy with the response. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 31 July 2025 and issued its stage 2 reply on 27 August 2025, which was 20 working days later. In its response it advised the resident to contact the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
20. The landlord missed its stage 1 timescale by 6 working days. This was a short delay. It apologised for the late response and explained that it needed additional time to provide a full reply. There is no evidence this delay had a specific impact on the resident, and it is not significant enough to be considered a formal complaint‑handling failure. The landlord met the required timescales at stage 2 and managed the complaint appropriately at that stage.