London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202416291)

Decision
Case ID	202416291
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	3 December 2025

Background

1. The resident has several long-term health conditions, including terminal cancer, for which he was receiving treatment at the time of the complaint. The landlord was aware of the resident’s health conditions.
2. The resident reported that the intercom in his building was not working correctly throughout 2021 to 2024. From the records we’ve seen, there were intermittent issues back to 2018. A managing agent (‘the agent’) handles the day-to-day management of the property and the landlord confirmed that the agent would handle the repair.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom system.
4. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom system.
6. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom system

7. The landlord did not chase the agent often enough considering the resident’s vulnerabilities and ill health. It did not take responsibility for the agent’s failures and did not offer appropriate compensation. It did not consider whether it could offer any other support to the resident.

Complaint handling

8. At stage 1, the landlord said that any compensation was the responsibility of the agent, which was incorrect. There were unexplained delays when the resident escalated his complaint, and while it offered compensation the amount was not reflective of the distress and inconvenience for 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 provided by a senior manager. 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 12 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by the repeated intercom outages. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by complaint handling failures. This offer replaces previous offers made during the complaints process, and it 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 payments it has already paid.	No later than 12 January 2026
3	Contact the resident The landlord must contact the resident to confirm whether the intercom is working as expected. If there are issues outstanding, it must take appropriate action to resolve them as soon as possible. The landlord must provide us with copies of correspondence with the resident and the agent.	No later than 12 January 2026
4	Learning order The landlord must review the failings in this case and share its findings with the agent. The review should also set out how it will minimise impact on the resident if the intercom breaks down again. The landlord must share a copy of the report and its communication with the agent with this service.	No later than 12 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2021-2023	Throughout this period, the resident reported issues with the intercom at least 4 times. Contractors attended each time but it is not clear from records what caused the faults. It is not clear whether the intercom was fully functioning after each visit.
21 March 2024	The resident again reported that the intercom was not working correctly. As a result, he missed his hospital transport for treatment.
22 March 2024	The landlord and the agent discussed the intercom issues and found that the issue was a disconnected telephone line. It is not clear how long the line was disconnected for.
5 April 2024	The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said that he had reported the intercom issue many times but the issue remained. He said that he had missed deliveries, hospital transport, and essential support from a cancer charity. He asked for compensation for the distress and inconvenience of the situation. The landlord contacted the agent who initially said they had no record of any calls. After further discussion, the agent confirmed they were aware of the issue. The resident also expressed concern at antisocial behaviour within the block.
8 April 2024	The landlord formally acknowledged the complaint.
18 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that the agent planned to replace the intercom system and the neighbourhood lead would update residents when it was done. While it acknowledged the resident’s distress, it said that any compensation was the responsibility of the agent.
May-July 2024	The resident and other tenants in the block again reported that the intercom had been working intermittently. He told the landlord that his medical transport would not pick him up due to the ongoing problems. As a result, he was having to pay for transport. He said that he had tried to report the issues to the agent but was not able to get through to anyone.
7 August 2024	The resident escalated his complaint as he was unhappy with the ongoing intercom issues. Based on call notes, the landlord told him it may not be able to escalate the complaint, but it would try.
16 September 2024	The landlord formally logged the resident’s escalation request after he called again to report another intercom breakdown.
24 September 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2 and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that the agent handled the repairs, and they planned to replace the intercom on 9 October 2024. It offered compensation of £100 for inconvenience from its failure to recognise the impact on the resident due to his vulnerabilities. It offered an added £20 for his time and effort.
7 December 2024	The agent replaced the intercom.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident came to us as he is unhappy with the length of time taken to replace the intercom, and the impact on him while it was not functioning correctly.

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 faulty intercom system
Finding	Maladministration

What we have investigated

9. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for communal door entry systems. Its tenancy booklet adds that this applies unless a managing agent is in place. The landlord can outsource block management but still holds ultimate responsibility for the block.
10. The landlord’s ‘Vulnerable Residents’ policy says it must make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 so disabled residents can access services equally. This includes removing barriers caused by physical features and giving extra support where needed. Adjustments may include changing service standards if delays could put residents at risk because of their disability.
11. Our spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents highlights the need for clear agreements. These agreements should set out roles and responsibilities.
12. The agent managed the building’s maintenance, but the landlord was responsible for monitoring their performance. This includes acting if the agent does not meet the conditions of the contract. The landlord holds ultimate responsibility and must manage its agents to ensure they deliver services within reasonable timescales.
13. Evidence shows the landlord escalated issues to the agent, but not often enough given the impact on the resident. Most contact was reactive and came after the resident chased updates. The landlord should have kept regular contact with the agent and updated the resident. The agent replaced the intercom 2 months after the date in the stage 2 response, and there is no evidence the landlord asked for an explanation.
14. The landlord should have considered enforcing the contract or escalating to senior management if it believed the agent was not meeting their obligations. The resident reported that the intercom was broken over 10 times. It should have pursued the matter with the agent, monitored its performance, and escalated the matter to senior management. There is no evidence it did this.
15. Evidence shows the landlord knew about the resident’s diagnosis of terminal cancer throughout the period investigated. He also told the landlord he missed specialist support from a cancer charity because they could not access his property. He said he was unwell, missed healthcare appointments, and relied on friends and family to help pay for transport.
16. There is no evidence the landlord considered giving the resident extra support or offering other ways to access the building.
17. The landlord offered £100 compensation for not considering the impact on the resident. While compensation was appropriate, the amount did not reflect the distress and inconvenience he experienced over a long period. There was also a 2-month delay in replacing the intercom and the landlord did not offer any redress for this.
18. For the reasons above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom system.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

19. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation within 5 working days. They must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects these requirements
20. In its stage 1 response, the landlord found no service failure and placed responsibility for compensation on the managing agent. This was not reasonable, as the landlord should have managed the agent’s performance and kept contact with the resident. It was responsible for offering compensation for any negative impact on the resident.
21. There were 28 working days between the resident’s escalation request and the formal acknowledgement. This did not follow the Code or the landlord’s policy, and there is no explanation for the delay. The landlord offered £20 compensation for “time and effort in getting the complaint resolved”. This amount did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused and was not consistent with our remedies guidance.
22. In its stage 1 response, the landlord found no service failure and placed responsibility for compensation on the managing agent. This was not reasonable, as the landlord was responsible for managing the agent’s performance. It was therefore responsible for offering compensation for any negative impact on the resident.
23. It is positive that the landlord recognised its mistake and offered some compensation at stage 2. The level of compensation, however, was not reflective of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
24. For the reasons above we found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. Evidence shows there was confusion about who was responsible for the intercom phone line. This caused repair delays. The landlord should keep clear records of which blocks have managing agents and what services each agent handles.

Communication

26. Communication was inconsistent. The landlord called the resident to explain its complaint decisions and make sure he understood them. However, its communication about repairs was reactive, and it did not keep regular contact with the resident to understand the impact.