London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202326123)

Decision
Case ID	202326123
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	5 January 2026

Background

This is a complaint brought by joint tenants. The residents live in a fourth floor flat and made multiple reports that the communal lift had broken down. The landlord failed to permanently repair the lift and offered the residents compensation which they felt was insufficient. This led the residents to make their complaint.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The residents’ reports of a faulty lift and the amount of compensation offered.
2. Complaint Handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of a faulty lift.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary the Ombudsman found that:

In the landlord’s response to the residents reports of a faulty lift

The landlord was responsive in sending a contractor to repair the lift each time it was reported as faulty.
It took 11 months for the landlord to complete an effective repair to the lift.
There were significant gaps in the landlord’s communication with the residents.

In the complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 2 response was 170 working days late.
The landlord did not follow The Code in respect of timescales or communication with the residents.

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 residents 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 06 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the residents £730 made up as follows: £480 (this includes £380 already paid to the residents by the landlord) to recognise the inconvenience caused by its delays in effectively repairing the lift and its failures to proactively communicate with the residents. £250 (this includes £120 already paid to the residents by the landlord) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the residents by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 06 February 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the residents 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

06 February 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the residents £730 made up as follows:

£480 (this includes £380 already paid to the residents by the landlord) to recognise the inconvenience caused by its delays in effectively repairing the lift and its failures to proactively communicate with the residents.
£250 (this includes £120 already paid to the residents by the landlord) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

This must be paid directly to the residents by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

06 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should proactively communicate with residents if any faults arise in future with the lift, about planned repair works or replacement via email, noticeboards, resident newsletters etc where appropriate.
The landlord should ensure its response times to residents’ complaints are in keeping with their complaints policy and the Code.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 February to 14 April 2023	The landlord arranged 6 contractor visits during this period to repair the lift.
19 April 2023	The residents made a formal complaint to the landlord. They said: The lift had an intermittent fault. They have reported this over 50 times in the past. They requested compensation for the inconvenience. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on the same day.
20 April to 2 May 2023	The contractor attended 4 times during this period to repair the lift.
9 May 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It carried out 9 separate repair visits between 28 February and 30 April 2023. On 2 May 2023, the engineer fitted a new door gear belt and left the lift in full service. It offered the residents £80 compensation for the inconvenience.
10 May 2023	The residents told the landlord they were unhappy with the compensation because they had reported the lift broken 11 times in the last 6 months. The landlord said this was the maximum it could offer in compensation and asked if they wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
10 July 2023	The residents escalated their complaint to stage 2. They wanted the period in May and July 2023 included because the lift had broken from 3 to 10 July 2023 and remained unrepaired.
8 and 15 August 2023	The landlord discussed the faulty lift with the contractor and requested a quote for a replacement or permanent solution. The contractor said different issues had caused each breakdown and that vandalism often contributed to the problems.
24 August 2023	The residents chased the outcome of their complaint. The landlord advised that the complaint had not been assigned within the customer relations team and that the stage 2 review process can take up to 6 months.
25 September 2023	The residents chased their stage 2 response. On 3 October 2023 the landlord repeated that the process could take up to 6 months.
5 October to 25 October 2023	The contractor attended 3 times during this period to repair the lift each time it broke. And advised the landlord on replacement and upgrade works, which were completed on 25 October 2023.
1 and 2 November 2023	The residents chased the stage 2 response again. The landlord repeated that it could take up to 6 months to respond.
10 November 2023	The lift was reported as not working and the landlord sent a contractor to repair it.
13 November to 27 November 2023	The resident’s chased the landlord on 4 occasions during this period and reported the lift broken again on 27 November 2023.
17 January 2023 to 5 February 2024	The contractor attended 3 times during this period to carry out repairs resulting from the insurance report on the lift.
22 January 2024	The resident’s requested an update on their complaint.
7 March 2024	The landlord issues its stage 2 response. It said: It apologised for the delay. Many jobs had been raised over a continuous period for the lift. It treated each job as a priority and left the lift in service each time, unless additional parts were identified. It offered £500 compensation for the inconvenience, distress, and number of times the residents had to report the lift as faulty.
7 March 2024	The landlord recorded 7 occasions between October 2023 and January 2024 when the lift required repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The residents raised their complaint with the Ombudsman. They said: The compensation was inadequate and £6000 would be more reasonable. The lift had broken down twice a week for the past 2 and a half years. They live on the fourth floor and have to carry groceries up multiple flights of stairs. Friends and family with disabilities have not been able to visit, and they felt isolated.

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 response to the residents reports of a faulty lift
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

Our scheme rules state that we do not investigate complaints that were not referred to the landlord within a reasonable time, normally 12 months. The residents told us the lift problems have been ongoing for 2 and a half years. The residents made a formal complaint in April 2023.
We found no evidence that they raised a complaint before April 2023, and we have not seen evidence that prevented them from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we based our decision on evidence from faults reported with the lift on 19 April 2023 and the landlord’s actions afterwards.

What we did investigate

The landlord’s repair policy states that it is responsible for maintaining lifts across all its homes.
We have seen evidence that the landlord responded promptly by sending a contractor to repair the lift faults as they were reported, often within 24 hours, in line with its emergency repairs policy.
Unless additional parts were required, the repairs resolved the lifts faults each time. However, the lift continued to break down. The repeated faults over many months likely caused the residents ongoing frustration and inconvenience.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided the residents with dates and details of all the contractor visits between February and April 2023. This demonstrated transparency about the issues.
The landlord did not discuss a permanent solution or replacement option for the lift with the contractor until August 2023. Given the frequent breakdowns in 2023, we would have expected to see evidence that the landlord considered whether a pattern indicated a wider issue. It should also have explained to the residents what the contractor believed the problem was, why breakdowns were frequent, and what steps it would take to implement a lasting repair.
The residents told us that since the landlord issued their stage 2 response in March 2024, the lift has had no further problems. Although the contractor indicated that faults were due to different issues each time and sometimes vandalism, the landlord took 11 months to achieve a lasting repair, which is unreasonable.
Lift breakdowns were likely inconvenient for the residents, especially as this was the only lift in the building. While complex repairs may require additional time, the landlord should have kept residents regularly updated.
We found no evidence that the landlord proactively updated the residents at any stage. It did not provide reassurance about preventing similar situations or why doing so was important.
The lack of information and reassurance likely caused uncertainty for the residents. It is understandable that they would have been concerned about how long the repair would last and how long each repair would take. The landlord did not fully recognise the impact of failing to provide clear and transparent information throughout the complaint and each time the lift became faulty.
We acknowledge that the landlord paid the residents £380 for their time, effort, distress, and inconvenience. This would have been reasonable redress if a lasting repair to the lift had been made promptly and if the landlord had communicated proactively about its repair and replacement plans.
It would have been inconvenient for the residents, living on the fourth floor, to be without a lift on multiple occasions between February 2023 and March 2024. They likely felt uncertain about the effectiveness of each repair and when the lift might break down again. Although the landlord repaired the lift each time in line with its policy, it failed to communicate or reassure the residents about its investigations, or its plans for repair and replacement.
Therefore, we do not consider the amount already paid by the landlord to the residents proportionate to fully address the impact of its failings. Considering the circumstances, and with reference to our remedies guidance, we have ordered an additional award of £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on time but issued its response 2 working days late.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord’s acknowledged the escalation to stage 2, which suggests a record keeping issue.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response 170 working days late. This is unreasonable and not in keeping with the Code. The residents contacted the landlord 8 times between August 2023 and January 2024 for its stage 2 response.
The landlord told the residents 3 times that the stage 2 review could take up to 6 months. This does not comply with the Code or the landlord’s complaint policy.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord requested an extension period or kept in regular contact with the residents between July 2023 and March 2024. Its lack of communication caused the residents unnecessary time and trouble chasing information.
We therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the residents £250. This includes the £120 already awarded to the residents by the landlord for their delays in complaint handling. This amount reflects the inconvenience and distress experienced by the residents in pursuing their complaint and is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping overall was good. However, it did not provide evidence of acknowledging the residents’ escalation, which highlights a record-keeping issue.

Communication

The residents would have benefited from more proactive communication about planned lift repairs and its complaint handling.
If the landlord requires an extension to respond to a complaint, it should contact the resident to request this.