London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202435149)

Decision
Case ID	202435149
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	10 December 2025

Background

The resident lives alone and has multiple disabilities. He complained because a leak was causing water to run down the walls when it rained and caused damage to property. He was also worried about a risk to electrical safety. He told the landlord he felt scared and was unhappy that no repairs had been carried out.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the:
1. Resident’s reports of a leak.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to the leak

The landlord identified what was causing the leak and the repairs needed in February 2024. There were record keeping and communication failures which impacted its service and this investigation. The landlord did not complete its proposed solutions and did not fix the leak. The issue remains ongoing at the time of this investigation, which was 2 years since the resident reported the leak. The landlord failed to be fair, put things right or learn from outcomes in its complaint responses.

Complaint handling

The landlord delayed responding at stage 2. It apologised and provided compensation for this.

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 CEO 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 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident: £1,436.33 to recognise any distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of his home between February 2024 and the date of this report. This is representative of 12% average rent in the Local Authority according to the Regulator for Social Housing. This should be in addition to the £440 offered at stage 2. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. This should be in addition to any compensation already paid.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	Compensation order In the event repairs are not completed, the landlord should write to the resident to set out its position on further compensation. This should consider the Ombudsman’s order above when calculating any additional compensation offered until roofing and internal repairs are completed.	No later than 07 January 2026
4	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure any repairs to fix the leak and associated damage are completed promptly and in any event by the due date. The landlord should write to the resident and this Service to confirm the works have been completed. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence 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 until the work is completed.	No later than 07 January 2026
5	Specific action The landlord must respond in writing to the resident’s report that the leak caused damage to his possessions.	No later than 07 January 2026
6	Learning order The landlord must review its complaint handling process to understand why the actions agreed in its stage 2 response were not completed. The landlord should consider how it can prevent similar failures in future. A written copy of this review should be sent to this Service by the due date.	No later than 07 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding the landlord pay the £120 compensation for complaint handling failures offered at stage 2, if not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2023	There were multiple reports of water leaking inside the property from the roof and 3 associated repair visits.
4 January 2024	The landlord recorded it had made safe water leaking through the wall onto electrics.
6 February 2024	The landlord attended the home. It noted the roof held rainwater which leaked into the resident’s kitchen ceiling, affecting the electrical system. It identified repairs needed.
8 February 2024	The resident made a stage 1 complaint. He said the leak had been occurring for a long period and there had been no lasting repair. He was anxious about the water reaching electrics. He wanted the issue fixed urgently.
9 February 2024	The landlord responded. It did not uphold the complaint because the contractor had 8 working days to make an appointment. It told the resident to contact the emergency line if the leak became uncontainable.
9 February 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he was anxious about his electrical safety because of the leak.
25 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said the repair to the leak was still outstanding and a contractor would undertake roofing works and then repair the damage to the resident’s home. It offered £440 compensation for stress, time and £120 compensation for complaint handling delays.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us because he said no repair works to his roof or kitchen had taken place. He said the leak was still ongoing, and he was scared about the electrics. He wanted the leak to be stopped and associated repairs completed.

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 resident’s reports of a leak
Finding	Severe maladministration

The landlord recorded 4 completed repairs in 2023 and 2 repair actions in early 2024 but it did not record what actions it took, or whether there were any outstanding works. The resident reported separate contactors attended to quote for the works but did not carry out repairs. The landlord’s record keeping impacted its ability to understand the issue and the repairs that were required. It also meant it was not possible for us to assess whether its actions before the stage 1 complaint were reasonable and in line with its repairs policy.
In February 2024 the landlord attended and noted a leak was coming from the roof which was holding rainwater. It identified the repairs needed and said there was “massive damage on electricity”. It was not clear if it assessed the priority of the issue, and this was not in line with its repairs policy which said it would assess the priority of the issue.
The landlord said a contractor would be in touch within 10 working days to repair the leak and associated damage. The contractor did not contact the resident and the landlord failed to follow this up. This was not in line with its repairs policy which said it would respond within set timescales dependent on the repair priority.
In February 2024 the landlord said it would turn off the heating and hot water as an emergency appointment to make the electrics safe. It recorded the resident declined this over the phone. However, the resident repeatedly said he was concerned about the safety of the electrics and the leak.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report: Attitudes, Respect and Rights emphasises treating residents as “equals” and ensuring they feel heard. The resident was disabled and spent most of his time in his home. There is no evidence the landlord took steps to reassure the resident about the length of time the heating and hot water would be turned off for, that it offered alternative heating options or assessed if temporary accommodation was necessary. This was a failure to consider his vulnerabilities in relation to the outstanding repairs and reports of electrical issues.
The resident was worried about the lack of action and escalated his concerns to the landlord. The landlord raised an appointment for 23 February 2024. However, this appointment did not go ahead. There are no records of this being cancelled or rearranged. This was a record keeping failure.
The resident continued to ask for updates and reported that no one had contacted him. The landlord recorded twice it would call him back but there is no evidence it did so.
In May 2024 the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the works were still outstanding. It said its contractor would conduct roofing works and rectify the associated damage in his kitchen. It did not provide a timeline for the works. This was a missed opportunity to clarify the actions it was taking and to provide the resident with a measurable plan.
In June 2024 the resident said he had not received the stage 2 response. The landlord resent its response but did not check if the agreed actions had been raised, started or completed. It was the landlord’s responsibility to manage the contractor and to ensure its repairs policies were being followed. This was a failure to identify there was a further delay and to investigate why its contractors had not yet contacted the resident in line with its service level agreement.
The landlord marked repairs to the communal roof complete on 14 November 2024. However, it did not record what work took place at this time. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 November 2024 and said no work had been completed since the stage 2 response. The landlord responded 12 working days later and apologised the works were not completed. The delay in response was not in line with its repairs policy. It said it would be in touch with an update. There is no evidence it did so, which likely caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
In December 2024, the landlord’s internal case notes confirmed it had been aware of a leak since February 2024 and roofing works had not yet been completed. It recorded the leak was active and causing damage to both the communal area and inside of the resident’s home.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord the leak had not been resolved and that he was distressed and scared by the situation. The landlord offered £440 compensation for failures as part of its stage 2 response. This did not reflect the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident when assessed against our remedies guidance, nor the effort the resident made over 2 years to get the issue resolved.
As of December 2025, the resident reported there have been no works undertaken. He told this Service he feels neglected and that “no one [has] called me, looked after me or cared for me”. He said he felt fear and stress about the situation and has tried to paint over the associated damp and mould “about 20 times”. He said contractors told him in 2023 the situation was unsafe and yet no works have been carried out.
Following its stage 2 response the landlord failed to complete the agreed works. It also failed on multiple occasions to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports the works had not been started. Its complaints team failed to take responsibility for the failure to start the agreed works and instead, asked the resident to open a new complaint.
The resident told us the complaints team had told him to contact this Service as it was unsure what actions could be taken next to get the leak repaired. This was a failure to take ownership of the issue and was not an appropriate route to the resident’s issues being resolved in a timely manner.
The landlord missed multiple opportunities to put things right and resolve the issue, leading to a finding of severe maladministration. We have ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance and using an equivalent rent calculation. The landlord should also ensure it has repaired the leak and associated damage or provide evidence that it has completed the works.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are the landlord:
1. Has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code in respect of timescales.
2. Responded to the stage 1 complaint and acknowledged the stage 2 escalation within its policy timescales.
3. Dated its stage 2 response on 24 May 2024. It is not possible to assess if this was sent to the resident. It sent this on 25 June 2024. This was outside of its policy timescale by 4 months.
4. Failed to do what it had agreed to.
The complaint handling process failed to take ownership of its commitments and did not respond appropriately when the resident reported the proposed remedy had not been followed through to its completion. This was not in line with the Code and has been assessed above in the substantive issue.
The landlord offered £120 for the delay to its stage 2 response. Considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is made on the understanding that the compensation offered is paid to the resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has an obligation to provide us with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. The landlord’s records provided prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint were incomplete and did not record what occurred at the appointments. The landlord’s complaint responses suggest there were some visits which were not recorded at all. This was a record keeping failure and impacted the landlord’s ability to assess and monitor repairs.
Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance highlights the importance of gathering feedback and conducting inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory. In this case there were continued failures to quality check agreed repairs had been raised and started, both before and after the formal complaints. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s requests for the agreed stage 2 actions to be completed. We’ve asked the landlord to conduct a learning review.

Communication

The landlord generally did not proactively communicate with the resident. He asked the landlord multiple times when the repairs would be started and completed. The landlord did not communicate within an expected timeframe.