London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202333539)

Decision
Case ID	202333539
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat within a converted house with his wife and 2 children. He complained to the landlord about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour living in the flat above over a 10-year period. This included allegations that the neighbour had intentionally caused leaks into the property, resulting in ceiling collapses and a loss of electricity. He also complained that he had damp and mould and his possessions had been damaged. The resident is disabled and there are vulnerabilities within the household.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs following leaks, including to collapsed ceilings, the electrics, and damp and mould.
   2. Repairs to the backdoor.
   3. Reports of damage to possessions.
   4. Reports of ASB.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following leaks, including to collapsed ceilings, the electrics, and damp and mould.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs to the backdoor.
   2. Handling of reports of ASB.
   3. Complaint handling.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to possessions.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord did not handle the repairs in line with its repairs policy. While it attended emergency repairs within its policy timeframe, it failed to manage follow-on repairs or to communicate clearly with the resident. While it inspected it failed to produce reports or evidence and clear actions. The nature of the repairs, and condition of the property, had a particularly negative impact on the resident due to his disability and household vulnerabilities.
8. Although it replaced the backdoor, the landlord did not do this within its policy timeframe. It cancelled repairs without explanation, delayed, and its communication was poor.
9. The landlord initially failed to follow or take any actions under its ASB policy when the resident repeatedly reported ASB. Although it did then start to follow its policy, it delayed in completing a risk assessment and its communication with the resident was poor.
10. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked full response to the complaint elements. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation request twice but then failed to provide a stage 2 response until we asked it to. Although it offered compensation for its poor complaint handling, it did not identify its failings, apologise for them, or say how it would learn from them.
11. The landlord followed its complaints policy and correctly referred the resident to its insurers when he complained about damage to possessions.

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 the chief executive. 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 18 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,700 made up as follows: £1,000 (inclusive of its £700 offer) for the significant distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, caused by its severe maladministration £400 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs to the backdoor £600 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling reports of ASB £700 for the additional distress, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings, which it already offered This 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 regarding this complaint.	No later than 18 February 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It 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. 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. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the whole of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issues together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issues identified (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. If the landlord has recently completed an inspection report, which meets the criteria set out above, it may provide a copy of this.	No later than 18 February 2026
4	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the repairs identified as needed within its inspection report ordered above are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 03 July 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord continues to offer support and advice to the resident on options to move to a more suitable property. This could include assisting the resident with an application to the local council, in looking for a mutual exchange, or with any other rehousing schemes which may be available.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 April 2022 to 19 November 2023	The resident reported leaks from above into the property and the landlord made safe. It completed a damp and mould survey, a housing conditions claim report and a mould wash. The resident also reported problems with his backdoor, and ASB being caused by the neighbour. Part of his ceiling collapsed on 19 November 2023.
20 November 2023	The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord which was about: Having had leaks from above causing damage to the property, including ceiling collapses, in 2014, 2016 and the previous day. The ceiling collapsing on him and his children. Not having an electricity supply in all rooms of the property due to the water damage. The neighbour having caused the water damage through ASB, which he had previously reported. He also told the landlord he was disabled and his wife had had a heart attack recently.
21 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint and the resident provided further information, including about his damaged possessions. The landlord then provided its stage 1 response, in which it: Explained it could only consider matters up to 6 months prior to the complaint under its complaints policy. Said it would investigate and had also raised an emergency repair to make safe his electrics. Advised the resident to contact its insurance team about a personal injury or damage to possessions claim. Apologised and recognised the impact the situation had had and partially upheld the complaint.
29 November 2023	The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said he had had leaks into the property since he first moved in in 2013. He had damp and mould and problems with his electrics, with only one working plug socket. He also said he had reported the neighbour causing the leaks deliberately, causing noise, and he had previously threatened to kill him. He said he had reported this to the police. He said he still had outstanding repairs which needed to be done.
6 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged escalation of the complaint.
15 December 2023 to 21 June 2024	The landlord carried out repairs and restored the electrics. There was a further leak and the resident continued to report ASB. The resident contacted the Ombudsman and on 19 June 2024 we asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response.
22 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response, in which it: Set out the complaint and the resident’s desired outcome was for it to resolve the ASB or to move him and his family to a different property. Said it had opened an ASB case and would complete a full investigation. Explained it had repaired the electrics, but he had since reported a new issue which it repaired on 23 May 2024. It had also booked a repair for his kitchen electrics for 21 June 2024. Confirmed it had raised a repair for his backdoor. Admitted service failures and offered £700 compensation for distress and failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities, and £700 for its poor complaint handling, totalling £1,400 compensation.
November 2024 to August 2025	The landlord completed a schedule of works and replaced the backdoor. There was a further leak from above and the landlord offered to temporarily move the resident to carry out repairs. It also responded to further reports of ASB. The resident, through a representative organisation, made a new complaint and the landlord responded at stages 1 and 2.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response. He said he had lived in unsuitable conditions for years due to the leaks and was overcrowded. He wanted the ASB and leaks to stop and to be moved to a more suitable property.

 

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 repairs following leaks, including to collapsed ceilings, the electrics, and damp and mould.
Finding	Severe maladministration

What we have not considered

12. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, in use at the time, it limited this period to 6 months. In his complaint the resident referred to events which took place going back to when he first moved into the property in 2013. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. We have limited our investigation to events from May 2022, when a housing conditions claim report and schedule of works was produced, up until the landlord’s stage 2 response in June 2024.
13. The resident told us that when his ceiling collapsed it injured him and his children. 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.

What we have considered

14. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure of the property, and the fixtures and fittings for the supply of water and electricity. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. In its repairs policy the landlord confirms this includes repairs to walls, ceilings and external doors. It says it will make good following a repair but will only redecorate in “exceptional circumstances”. It will attend emergency repairs, where there is immediate danger, within 24 hours. It will complete routine, or day to day, repairs within 25 days. It will prioritise health and safety repairs for vulnerable residents under its vulnerable residents policy.
15. There have been multiple leaks from the property above into the property, and some ceiling collapses, between March 2014 and April 2022. The landlord attended an emergency repair to make safe electrics following a leak in July 2022, in line with its repairs policy.
16. In May 2022 the landlord completed a housing conditions claim report, this identified a number of repairs which needed to be completed and noted that the resident would need to be decanted as the works to the bathroom would render the property inhabitable.
17. In November 2022, the landlord’s legal team advised that the resident’s solicitors were no longer acting. It advised the landlord to complete the repairs and to consider an injunction if access was refused. The evidence does not show what action the landlord took in response to this advice.
18. It was not until late February 2023 that the landlord contacted its legal team about difficulties in accessing the property to complete the asbestos survey. It was agreed that the legal team would write to the resident to remind him of his obligation to provide access. I consider that to be a reasonable step. However, records show that access attempts had already been made in May, June, July, and August 2022. Despite this, the landlord did not escalate matters or take further action until several months later, when 2 additional appointments also failed.
19. Positively it carried out a damp and mould survey, and clean and treatment, on 3 March 2023 in line with its damp and mould policy. However, it has not provided a copy of its inspection report, or any details of when the resident reported damp and mould, which is a record keeping failing.
20. Due to the resident, via solicitors, raising a disrepair matter with the landlord it inspected in March 2023 and raised repairs. The landlord has confirmed that a claim was not issued at court and no settlement reached.
21. The resident reported on 4 April 2023 that he had not had electricity for 2 and a half years, and on 24 April 2023 chased the landlord for contact about his repairs. There is no evidence the landlord followed its repairs policy. It should have treated his report as an emergency and have attended within 24 hours. This was a failing.
22. The asbestos survey was eventually completed on 14 April 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended the property and provided a quotation. It is positive that the landlord approved this promptly. However, subsequent records show that the contractor experienced difficulty contacting the resident and sought guidance from the landlord on several occasions.
23. In August 2023, the landlord instructed the contractor to place the works on hold while it liaised with its legal team. While this may have been appropriate, there is no evidence of any follow‑up action or clear decision‑making and it was not until 6 November 2023, when the contractor requested an update from the landlord that the works progressed.
24. In addition to the above, following its repairs policy the landlord attended as an emergency when the resident’s ceiling collapsed on 19 November 2023. Its records do not give a reason for the collapse, other than the resident said this was due to the neighbour banging or jumping. It attended to make safe electrics but reported the kitchen light was already isolated. This shows a record keeping failing, as it should have known this. It also supports the resident’s report about an ongoing lack of electrics. The landlord’s photographs show the resident having to use an extension lead. Following both of its emergency attendances the landlord failed to arrange any follow-on repairs to repair the ceiling or any of the other damage caused to the property.
25. When the resident chased the landlord, and reported damp and mould, the landlord inspected the property which was positive. However, it failed to provide a copy of an inspection report to the resident or to us. There is no evidence it discussed the repairs required with the resident which was a further failing. There was confusion about the repairs, and there is also no evidence of whether it considered a temporary move for the resident, in line with the May 2022 schedule of works, or that it took into account the household’s vulnerabilities, which was a further failing.
26. The contractor informed the landlord that the works were completed in January 2024, however it was not until April 2024 that the landlord completed a post inspection. This identified that some works remained outstanding, including the kitchen light fitting.
27. Within its stage 2 response the landlord said it had raised a repair to reinstate the kitchen electrics. It is not clear why there was a delay, outside of its policy timeframe, to do so and this was a failing. It is not clear from the evidence, and not mentioned within the response, whether the landlord had completed all other outstanding repairs by this time.
28. Considering the condition the property had been in, and the resident and his household’s vulnerabilities, the landlord should have made sure the property was in a reasonable condition and ‘made good’ following its repairs policy. It should have also inspected for damp and mould. There is also no evidence it carried out further investigations into the property above to establish why there had been so many leaks, whether the causes were different each time, and whether there was a way to try to prevent any further leaks.
29. The landlord accepted there were failings within its stage 2 response, but it failed to specify these. It offered £700 compensation, but did not specify what this was for, other than distress and failure to recognise the impact on the resident due to his vulnerabilities. While the landlord attended emergency repairs within its policy timeframe its handling of repairs was poor. While it inspected the resident’s property, it failed to progress the repairs within a timely manner. It is acknowledged that there was access issues, however the landlord should have acted sooner in taking further action to gain access. Furthermore, it did not communicate clearly with the resident and there is no evidence it took into account household vulnerabilities. There was severe maladministration.
30. The effects of the leaks, ceiling collapses, lack of electricity, and repairs required were made worse by the resident’s disability which meant he spent most of his time at home in an overcrowded property. The landlord’s failings, coupled with poor communication and having to be chased, caused significant distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, for the resident. To reflect this impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation to him, which is inclusive of its £700 offer, and is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs to the backdoor.
Finding	Maladministration

31. The tenancy agreement and landlord’s repairs policy confirm it was responsible for repairing external doors. It raised a repair to renew the backdoor on 17 February 2023 but marked this as “complete no action” which was a failing. Its records do not explain why it did not complete the repair. The landlord inspected the property on 17 March 2023 but either did not identify the outstanding repair or failed to raise it.
32. Within its stage 2 response on 22 June 2024 the landlord said it had raised a repair for an inspection, and any follow-up works needed. Its records say this repair was cancelled. However, it did replace the backdoor on 13 February 2025. While it is positive that it replaced the door, it did so almost 2 years after it first raised a repair to do so. This was far in excess of its 25-day repairs policy timeframe or any notion of a reasonable time. There is also no evidence of clear communication with the resident about the repair.
33. There was maladministration which caused inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of damage to possessions.
Finding	No maladministration

34. The resident raised that his possessions had been damaged when his ceiling collapsed within his stage 1 complaint. He said his furniture, carpet, and laptop were damaged by leaks. He also said his cooker and microwave were damaged due to water getting into the electrics, and his clothes had been damaged by mould.
35. Within its stage 1 response the landlord advised the resident to contact its insurance team and provided an email address. This was in line with its complaints policy, which excludes legal liability claims such as liability for damage. The landlord’s insurers would be in a better position to be able to determine any liability. It was reasonable that the landlord directed the resident to make an insurance claim to its insurers. There was no maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

36. As already set out above, our Scheme rules mean we cannot consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord within a reasonable time. Therefore, our investigation has been limited to 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint up until the landlord’s stage 2 response.
37. The resident told the landlord, and us, that his desired outcome was to move. We do not have the power under our Scheme to order a landlord to move a resident, and this is not a remedy we can offer.

What we have considered

38. The landlord’s ASB policy in use at the time sets out the actions it will take when it receives an ASB report. It says it will assign a priority based on the type of ASB, harm or potential harm, and the evidence available. If it assigns a high priority to the case, it will complete a risk assessment. In all ASB cases it will provide support and advice and agree an action plan with the resident.
39. On 17 March 2023 the resident told the landlord the neighbour had been causing leaks deliberately and that he was afraid of him. There is no evidence the landlord took any of the actions under its policy following this report, which was a failing. The landlord arranged a meeting with the resident, at its offices, when he reported further ASB in May 2023. This was in line with its policy. However, the landlord has not provided any record of the meeting or whether it took place, which is a record keeping failing.
40. Within his stage 1 complaint the resident raised ASB again. The landlord said in its response it had asked internally for a “quick investigation to resolve the matter”. But it is not clear if this referred to the repairs issues or the ASB, and it should have been clearer. There is no evidence the landlord opened an ASB case, which is a failing. When the resident asked to escalate his complaint, he explained the neighbour had threatened to kill him “many times” and had been arrested by the police twice. The landlord failed to open an ASB case or investigate his claims. Under its policy it says it will work with partners such as the police. But it failed to contact the police to obtain any information. It did not carry out a risk assessment which was a significant failing.
41. Although the resident reported further ASB on 6 January 2024 and 14 February 2024, the landlord did not open an ASB case until 28 February 2024. This was nearly a year after his first report and an unreasonable delay. Under its policy it should have assigned a priority, and could have completed a risk assessment, but it failed to. While it is positive it contacted him to discuss the ASB there was a further delay in doing so. It discussed use of its noise app and diary sheets to collect evidence, as per its policy. It also asked for police reference numbers and made a disclosure request in line with its policy. It also made further enquiries with the police which was positive. It had a meeting with the resident, where it discussed evidence gathering and managed expectations in line with its policy. It also offered mediation, but after such a delay in opening the ASB case this was too late to be an effective option.
42. Having established from the police that they did not believe there was a threat to life, it was reasonable that the landlord said it could not offer the resident a move. However, it still should have completed a risk assessment under its policy. There is no evidence it did so until 28 May 2025. It could have also investigated whether the noise being complained of was due to the nature of the property, being a converted house into flats, or whether the neighbour had suitable floor coverings. There is no evidence it did this which was a failing.
43. It was positive that it discussed other options such as mutual exchange. It was also positive that the landlord made a referral to support services when the resident said the situation was affecting his mental health, in line with its vulnerable residents policy.
44. It is not clear what the landlord did to try to help the resident understand that the leaks were likely not to be being caused deliberately. Within its notes it said the resident “believes the floods which he has been victim to have all been intentional and said have been ongoing for years. I believe it has occurred 4 times looking at the job history and after speaking to [the resident] however, they have been in different areas of the property.” Additionally, the landlord has provided evidence to us which shows leaks from above into the property occurred before the resident’s tenancy started. This information may have assisted the resident.
45. Within its stage 2 response the landlord said it had opened an ASB case and would “do a full investigation”. This was not a response to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It was also concerning for it to say it had opened an ASB case, when there was already one, and points to poor handling of knowledge and information. This would not have inspired confidence in the resident. Ultimately the landlord failed to explain what it had done or would do to try to resolve the ASB, which was a significant failing.
46. There was maladministration, which caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. The resident felt helpless and ignored which was made worse by having to spend most of his time at the property due to his disability. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £600 compensation to him.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Maladministration

47. The landlord had a 2-stage complaints process under its complaints policy in use at the time. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. If it needs more time, it will contact the resident to request an extension of time. It will acknowledge escalation requests and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. If it needs more time, it will contact the resident to request an extension of time. The landlord’s complaints policy was compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time.
48. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint and discussed it with him, and provided its response, well within its policy timeframes. However, its response lacked detail but promised to investigate further, which was not helpful to the resident. Within the response the landlord limited the scope of its investigation, following its policy, to exclude events which occurred more than 6 months previously. This was reasonable at the time.
49. When the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 29 November 2023, the landlord promptly acknowledged this. It then provided a second acknowledgement on 13 December 2023. However, it failed to provide a stage 2 response within its policy timeframe. It also failed to ask for an extension of time, as permitted under its policy and the Code. It provided its stage 2 response on 22 June 2024, which was 142 working days after his escalation request, or nearly 7 months. This was after we asked it to do so and was an unacceptable and unexplained delay. It also failed to fully respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of ASB.
50. Positively within its stage 2 response the landlord offered £700 compensation for its delays. In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
51. The landlord offered reasonable compensation for the additional distress, time and trouble caused to the resident. However, it failed to fully acknowledge its failings or apologise for them. It also did not say how it had learnt from them within its response. There was maladministration and an order has been made that the landlord pay the £700 compensation it offered at stage 2 to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

52. The landlord failed to record, retain, or provide evidence which would have assisted our investigation. When carrying out inspections the landlord should write a report and be able to provide a copy to the resident and us. It should also consider how it can improve its repairs records, to include more detail on what happened and when.

Communication

53. The landlord’s communication could be improved. While there were examples of good communication there was several times when there was no communication. When arranging and carrying out repairs good communication is vital. The landlord should plan to be more proactive in its communication where follow-on repairs or complex works are required.