London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202301975)

Decision
Case ID	202301975
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

The resident is a senior citizen who lives in a house with her family, including her adult child and young grandchild, and described them as all being ill at the time of her complaint. She was helped by a representative during her complaint and they are both referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her loss of heating and hot water following a boiler failure in March 2023. She also complained about the behaviour of a contractor who attended this and the level of compensation later offered for this and the landlord’s complaint handling.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of no heating and hot water at her property.
2. Concerns about the behaviour of one of its contractors.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the reports of no heating and hot water.
2. There was no maladministration in landlord’s handling of the concerns about the contractor’s behaviour.
3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

No heating and hot water – what we did not investigate

The resident told us that she, her adult child, and her young grandchild became ill during the loss of heating and hot water at her property. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the complaint about the discrimination the resident told us happened when the landlord and its contractor responded to her reports of having no heating and hot water is better dealt with by the court. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to make legally binding decisions about this in the way the court can. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate the complaint about discrimination.

What we did investigate

Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair and working order the installations it provides for heating and hot water. This includes the boiler and associated pipework and wiring.
The landlord’s repairs policy classifies a total loss of heating and hot water as an emergency repair and expects these repairs to be attended within 24 hours. It aims to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days.
The resident reported that the boiler stopped working on 26 March 2023 and she had no heating and hot water. The landlord’s records show the issue was reported to it on 27 March 2023.
Following an attendance by the landlord’s contractor on 28 March 2023, 2 small temporary heaters were provided but the boiler repair could not be completed due to parts being needed. There was then an unsuccessful attendance by the contractor on 29 March 2023, when works were not completed.
On 29 March 2023, the resident complained about the unsuccessful attendance and that the landlord had not fixed the loss of heating and hot water, which she wanted the boiler replaced for, including because of multiple previous breakdowns over the past year.
After multiple further reports, inspections, and unsuccessful attendances for the boiler from 30 March 2023 to 19 April 2023, when the resident also reported a boiler leak and being unwell, a survey and inspection for a new boiler were raised on 21 April 2023. The boiler then continued to leak and had to keep being temporarily reset until this was replaced on 9 May 2023, which was 43 calendar days after the issue was reported.
On 5 December 2023, the resident reported a further boiler breakdown that the landlord attended and repaired a day later than its policy’s 24-hour emergency timescale on 7 December 2023 after its contractor’s engineers were unavailable to fix this sooner.
The landlord took steps to inspect and arrange works for the boiler, including by initially attending the breakdown within its policy’s 24-hour timescale. It did not, however, restore the heating and hot water within its 25-calendar-day routine repair timescale. It took 43 calendar days from the report on 27 March 2023 for the boiler to be replaced on 9 May 2023, as well as delaying the above emergency repair by a day in December 2023. These were clear delays compared with its policy’s timescales. The landlord later also accepted that communication with the resident about the reasons for the delay was not clear and that appointments were not always effective first time. However, it was positive that it gave her temporary heaters from the day after the boiler breakdown was reported.
Given the length of time without reliable heating and hot water and the additional issues raised, the landlord’s repairs response was nevertheless not in line with its policy. Although there were failings, however, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the identified failures through its acknowledgement of these, actions to resolve the outstanding works, and the level of compensation offered. At stage 2, it offered the resident a total of £810.20, which breaks down into:
1. £96 for loss of heating service/facility.
2. £96 for loss of hot water service/facility.
3. £100 for distress from the failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
4. £80 for inconvenience from the failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
5. £200 for the time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
6. £60 for missed or delayed appointments.
7. £178.20 for the costs of 45 days of running temporary heaters.
This was in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures that had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord also appropriately gave her its insurance team’s details to make a claim for the illness she reported she, her adult child, and her young grandchild had at the time, as its compensation policy said it would refer such alleged injuries to the insurance team. It therefore made reasonable redress for its handling of reports of no heating and hot water, which we have recommended it pay her if it has not already done so.

Concerns about contractor’s behaviour

As part of the landlord’s repairs policy, its code of conduct says it expects its operatives and contractors to provide its residents with a safe, reliable service which gives them respect, and that it will treat its residents in a way that they wanted to be treated. The resident complained that, on 29 March 2023, one of the landlord’s contractors arrived late at 3:30pm for a morning appointment after she called several times, was rude to her, got into an argument, and left without completing any repairs. She was unhappy that it then put a notice on her account so she would not be visited alone by the contractor’s operatives again. The landlord also arranged for the operative involved in the above incident to not attend the resident’s property again.
The landlord apologised that the resident felt the contractor’s behaviour was unacceptable and rude, explained they had made counter-allegations about her family’s behaviour, and said they would also not accept such behaviour and could refuse to complete works for this. It agreed to discuss this with the contractor, confirmed the notice on her account would not affect how long any future repairs at her property took, explained this was for everybody’s safety, and confirmed the contractor’s operatives received equality, diversity, and inclusion training. The landlord also said the contractor was happy to talk to the resident about this if she contacted them.
We do not have the authority or expertise to decide between conflicting accounts of behaviour by different parties in the absence of any other evidence of this in the way the court might. We instead decide whether the landlord responded to the reports about the contractor’s behaviour fairly and in line with its code of conduct. In this case, the landlord responded to the resident’s report of the incident on the same day it happened by making sure the operative involved would not return to her property and that the contractor would not attend again alone. This was an appropriate way of making sure the code of conduct’s requirements for a safe, reliable, and respectful service in the way the resident wanted was delivered.
The landlord also promptly apologised to and explained the incident to the resident from 14 April 2023, and it took suitable action to try and stop this from happening again. This is because it explained it would discuss this with the contractor, as well as taking the above steps. The landlord also reassured the resident that the contractor’s future attendance arrangements would not affect her repair timescales, that they were appropriately trained, and that they were happy to talk to her about this. There was therefore no maladministration in its handling of her concerns about the contractor’s behaviour because it took suitable action to prevent this and reassure her in line with its policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process under its complaints procedure. It acknowledges complaints within 2 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days from when the complaints are logged and escalated, respectively. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 29 March 2023. The landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint on 30 March 2023 and issued its stage 1 response on 14 April 2023, 10 working days later, which is consistent with the timescales of its procedure. The response mainly addressed the contractor’s behaviour complaint. It did not clearly confirm how and when the landlord would restore heating and hot water, or what support it would provide while repairs continued in the meantime.
On 14 November 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. On 7 December 2023, the landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 and added £50 compensation for the complaint handling delay. This was 15 working days later than its procedure’s 2-working-day acknowledgement timescale.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 January 2024. It accepted there had been a delay and poor communication and that it had offered the resident £50 compensation for its poor complaint handling. The stage 2 response was sent 18 working days outside of the landlord’s procedure’s 20-working-day timescale. The evidence provided does not show the landlord agreed an extension with the resident. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling fell short because of the limited stage 1 response, stage 2 delay, and lack of updates while the resident was waiting for a response. However, the £50 it offered was in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation for such delays in getting matters resolved for her, and so it made reasonable redress to her for this that we recommend it pay her if it has not already done so.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £860.20 offered in its stage 2 complaint response. Our findings of reasonable redress for its handling of the repairs and associated complaint are made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.