London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202313958)

Decision
Case ID	202313958
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

1. On 9 October 2022 the resident told the landlord the thermal boards installed in his child’s bedroom had reduced the size of the room and the bed no longer fitted. He said the boards had been fitted as part of the landlord’s response to damp and mould, and he wanted it to provide a resolution or remove the chimney breast. In December 2022 the resident raised a complaint because the landlord had not provided a resolution.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Request to increase the space available within his child’s bedroom.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to increase the space available within his child’s bedroom.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Request to increase the space available within the child’s bedroom

4. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request or complete the agreed actions within a reasonable timeframe. It took over 1 year for it to consider the matter and provide a response and resolution. It did not acknowledge the failures in its complaint response or offer the resident proportionate redress.

Complaint

5. The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with its complaint policy or the Code. While it acknowledged there were failures in its complaint handling it did not offer the resident proportionate redress.

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 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £200 for the time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident’s caused by the landlord’s delayed response to his request to increase the space within the child’s bedroom £150 (inclusive of the £60 previously awarded) for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling   This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date	No later than 27 March 2026
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because there is a differing account regarding the completion of the minor work to increase the available bedroom space. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed The outcome of the inspection should be provided to the resident including confirmation of the room size If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date	No later than 27 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 October 2022	The resident told the landlord the thermal boarding applied to the bedroom walls, as part of its damp and mould works, meant a bed no longer fitted in the room.
19 December 2022	The resident complained. He said the landlord had visited and said it would raise an order to relocate a radiator and an electric socket. He said the matter was urgent because his son was too big for a short bed.
13 June 2023	The resident raised his complaint again. On this occasion, he asked the landlord to remove the chimney breast to increase the size of the room.
14 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had contacted its roofing maintenance supervisor to address the matter and would provide an update within 10 days.
27 December 2023	The landlord updated the resident. It said it could not remove the chimney breast because it considered this an improvement and escalated the complaint on his behalf.
24 January 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It: apologised for its complaint handling explained it could not remove the chimney breast because it considered this a home improvement confirmed an appointment to measure the bedroom and offered £60 for its complaint handling failures
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the issue remained unresolved and the landlord had not provided a resolution. He said its offer to relocate the radiator, and electrical socket would not resolve the problem as a suitable size bed for his child did not fit within the room. He wanted the landlord to remove the chimney breast and to provide reasonable compensation for the distress, time and effort caused.

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	Resident’s request to increase the size of the bedroom
Finding	Maladministration

6. On 9 October 2022, the resident reported the thermal boarding applied to the walls within his child’s bedroom, as part of its damp and mould works, meant a short bed no longer fitted. The landlord agreed to reposition the radiator and an electrical socket to resolve the matter, but there’s no evidence it updated the resident or completed the works. This is a record keeping failure. The resident raised a complaint on 19 December 2022 due to the lack of progress.
7. On 10 June 2023 the resident chased the landlord for a response to his complaint. It said it remained active, the roofing supervisor was investigating, and it would provide an update. The lack of clarity around timescales was a communication failure by the landlord. This is likely to have frustrated the resident who had already waited 6 months for a response.
8. On 13 June 2023 and with the complaint still active, the resident asked the landlord to remove the chimney breast from his child’s bedroom. The landlord repeated it was waiting for information from its roofing supervisor. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 3 further occasions during June and July 2023. There is no evidence of any updates from the landlord. This was a communication failure.
9. The resident chased an update from the landlord on 7 December 2023, it replied on 27 December 2023. It said it could not remove the chimney breast because it considered this a home improvement. The landlord’s improvements and alteration policy confirms it is not required to carry out structural alterations. The landlord was entitled to make this decision in line with its policy, however the 6-month delay in providing this response was not reasonable. Further, the response failed to address the delay to the relocation of the radiator and electrical socket, which had been outstanding for over 12 months.
10. In January 2024 the landlord showed it was actively seeking to provide a customer focused resolution. A surveyor was instructed to confirm the room size and provide recommendations. It recommended the removal of the corner chimney breast or repositioning the radiator and electrical points and measured the bedroom at 5.06 sqm (54.47 sq. ft). Under the Housing Act 1985 space standard, a room between 50 and 70 sq. ft counts as half a bedroom, typically suitable for a child under 10. He confirmed the room could accommodate a bed if the radiator and electrical points were repositioned. The landlord was entitled to rely on these findings when proposing a resolution.
11. On 7 February 2024 the landlord informed the resident it would reposition the radiator, electrical sockets and refer the resident’s concerns about overcrowding to the relevant team. It also included the resident’s housing options in its stage 2 response. This was reasonable.
12. The landlord attended on 8 February 2024 to complete the works. The resident said moving the radiator and sockets would not resolve the issue unless the pipework was installed under the floorboards. In February 2026 the resident told us the works had still not been completed. The landlord told us the radiator had been relocated but the sockets did not require moving. Given the differing accounts, and the landlord’s commitment to improve the usable space, it is unclear whether the works achieved the intended outcome. An order has been made for the landlord to consider if further work is required to make the space more usable following its installation of thermal boards.
13. Although the landlord’s decision not to remove the chimney breast was in line with its policy, the delays in responding and in considering an alternative resolution were not reasonable and showed the landlord did not meet its obligations to handle the matter in a timely way. While the decision did not affect the overall outcome for the resident, the landlord’s delay in providing a response and its lack of communication caused disappointment, inconvenience, time, and trouble. Further, the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.
14. Having considered all the circumstances of the case we have found maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 in line with our remedies guidance. This sum reflects the likely distress and inconvenience caused to him by the landlord’s delayed actions and communication.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

15. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
16. The resident raised a complaint on 19 December 2022, the landlord acknowledged it, 11 days later on 5 January 2023 but did not provide a response. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
17. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 June 2023, and the landlord acknowledged it on the same day. However, it said there was a backlog at stage 2, and it could not provide a timeframe or a response. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will not escalate a complaint until a stage 1 response has been provided. The response provided was not appropriate as it was not in line with its policy or the Code.
18. On 13 June 2023 the resident raised his complaint again, the landlord did not acknowledge it or respond. The landlord’s complaints policy says all complaints will be logged, acknowledged, and investigated. The resident should not have needed to raise his complaint more than once. This was not appropriate and was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
19. We contacted the landlord on 14 September 2023 and asked it to provide a complaint response to the resident. The landlord acknowledged it and provided its response on the same day. This was within the required 5-working day for an acknowledgement and 10-working day timeframe for a response.
20. The landlords stage 1 response of 14 September 2023 repeated information given to the resident previously, it said it would update the resident in 10 days. There is no evidence the landlord provided the update, which led the resident to expend further time and trouble on 7 December 2023 chasing a response. The landlord’s delayed communication and lack of updates to the resident in a timely manner did not demonstrate a commitment to work with him or provide a resolution to the complaint.
21. The landlord escalated the complaint on the resident’s behalf on 27 December 2023 and acknowledged it on the same day. It issued its stage 2 response, 20 days later on 24 January 2024. This was in line with the timescales set out in its policy and the Code.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response identified failures in its complaint handling, it apologised and awarded the resident £60 for this failure. In doing so it sought to act in line with our dispute resolution principles: to act fairly and to put things right, however it did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint. Its compensation policy states it will award discretionary compensation when its mistake or failure causes a customer distress, inconvenience, or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort to put things right. The policy does not specify how much it would award.
23. In summary, we find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. While it acknowledged a failure and offered compensation, this was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. Having considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident. This reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its complaint handling.

Learning

24. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, did not answer all the complaint, and took too long.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. Throughout the complaint it is evidenced that the landlord did not provide updates to the resident when it said it would. This caused time and trouble for the resident and showed a record keeping failure.

Communication

26. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It missed multiple opportunities to engage with the resident. The landlord should consider how this occurred to prevent a recurrence in the future.