London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202443463)

Decision
Case ID	202443463
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 February 2026

Background

1. The resident reported a leak from a communal waste stack pipe into his bathroom from July 2024 and raised concerns about delays in repair. He told the landlord that his young children had dry skin conditions which meant regular bathroom use was important. The landlord acknowledged delays and offered compensation, but it did not fully resolve the leak until June 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of a communal waste stack leak.
   2. Associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of leak.
   2. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to communal waste stack leak

4. The landlord unreasonably delayed addressing the repair and did not properly assess the health and safety risks from wastewater leaking into the resident’s bathroom, particularly given the household’s vulnerabilities. It misinterpreted the issue as solely communal and failed to raise the required residential work order. This led to poor co-ordination of remedial works and poor communication. Although the landlord acknowledged some failings at stage 2, the redress offered did not accurately reflect the full extent of the landlord’s failures including the delay that followed its stage 2 response.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord met the timescales in its complaint policy and provided timely responses, so its complaint handling was appropriate.

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 head of service. 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 25 March 2026
2	Compensation order   In addition to the compensation offered by the landlord at stage 2, we order the landlord to pay £1000.This brings the total amount of compensation it must pay to £2,100. The additional compensation amount accounts for additional failings identified as well as the additional delay in repairs between 30 January 2025 to when remedial works completed on 16 July 2025. 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.	No later than 25 March 2026
3	Case Review Order   The landlord must carry out a case review that focuses on the concerns identified in this report. This review must consider its handling of the communal repair that directly impacted on the resident, including the extent to which it considered household vulnerabilities. The landlord must review how it responds to potential health and safety hazards and implement any learning identified to ensure it responds appropriately. The review must result in a written report which is to be shared with the resident and this Service.	No later than 27 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 September 2024	The resident raised a complaint. He said he reported a leak from a communal waste stack pipe that runs into his bathroom.  The resident said the landlord had scheduled an appointment for 3 September 2024 which it cancelled without notice because an operative could not attend.
9 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said: The landlord raised a communal repair on 19 July 2024. It rescheduled the initial appointment for 3 September to 1 October 2024 because its operative was unavailable. It did not notify the resident of the cancellation because it had logged the repair as a communal issue. It brought the appointment forward to 13 September 2024 and stated the operative would access the resident’s property to investigate the leak. It said it would continue to monitor the repair and keep the resident updated about the next steps.
19 November 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said: The leak was ongoing with wastewater going into his bathroom causing damage to walls, ceiling and laminate flooring. The landlord had not offered support with a dehumidifier or cleaning which he had to source himself. The resident was concerned about risk to his family’s health. The landlord issued its stage 2 acknowledgment in which is said: It provided details of its liability insurer for damage to flooring. It informed the resident damage to belongings should be made via his home contents insurance. It had urgently chased the leak repair and would update the resident about progress. It had raised a work order for a contractor to complete a mould wash assessment to the affected wall, but this was postponed pending the completed leak repair. It offered compensation of £100 made up of £80.00 for inconvenience for its failure to recognise the impact on the resident and £20.00 for the resident’s time and trouble.  The resident said that the leak was now affecting a neighbour who shared the same stack. The resident said an offer of compensation was not appropriate outside of the landlord’s stage 2 response.
16 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: Its operative attended on 13 September but could not locate the cause of the leak.  It apologised its contractor attended without prior notice because the matter was raised as a communal issue. Its operative had visited 3 other properties and identified a leak to the stack connection in one of the above flats. It identified follow–on works which the landlord would monitor. It provided details about its liability insurance process and how to make a claim. It said it would make an appointment for repairs to the bathroom walls and said the resident should contact its customer service team to book this once it had resolved the leak. It offered compensation up to the end of January 2025, totalling £1,110.00 which included £100 offered outside of its stage 1 response, made up as follows: –          £360.00 for inconvenience. –          £20.00 for missed appointments. –          £250.00 for the cost of running dehumidifier –          £360 for distress due to wastewater entering home. –          £120 for delays in completing repairs
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 28 January 2025 the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response because the leak was still outstanding. He recognised the landlord had offered some compensation to account for some of its failings. However, the resident said it was not reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation when the leak was unresolved, and the resident was continuing to experience the same issues.   The resident said the turnaround time for the repair was excessive. He also said the landlord advised him to go through its insurer regarding floor damage but to do so, he asked for confirmation of the repair. Further, he said because the leak was classified as a communal issue the landlord failed to understand the nature of the leak and how it was affecting him and his family.
5 June 2025	The work order records show the landlords operatives resolved the leak on this date. The landlord raised follow-on repairs and decorative works that it completed in July 2025. The resident has told us that no works are outstanding.

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 response to communal waste stack leak.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. The resident said the leak affected his family’s health due to the damp conditions. We cannot decide whether the landlord’s actions caused or contributed to health issues. That would be for a court or another body with the appropriate expertise. We can, however, consider distress and inconvenience caused by service failures.
7. The landlord’s repairs policy recommends that residents take out home contents insurance. In its final complaint response, it advised the resident to claim for the damaged flooring through his own insurance or through the landlord’s insurance team. It was unclear whether the resident had cover or whether contents insurance would apply. We do not determine liability for damaged items or award damages as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so.

 What we have investigated

8. It is not in dispute that the landlord delayed repairs beyond a reasonable timeframe. The leak was unresolved at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response in December 2024 and was not repaired until June 2025. It completed remedial works in July 2025. Therefore, we consider it reasonable and proportionate for this investigation to focus on the period from July 2024 to July 2025.
9. The resident raised an online report for a communal repair from the communal waste stack pipe into his bathroom. The online complaint form is undated, so the exact date of the report is unknown. The landlord raised a communal work order on 17 July 2024 for an operative to carry out an external inspection. The landlord booked an appointment for 3 September 2024. When the operative failed to attend, the resident made a complaint. He said the landlord did not notify him of the missed appointment.
10. In its stage 1 response on 9 September 2024, the landlord said it did not notify the resident because it had logged the repair as communal. It then booked a new appointment for 13 September 2024 that included an inspection of the resident’s bathroom. The landlord said it would investigate the leak, monitor the repair and keep the resident updated on next steps.  However, although the repairs log noted that the communal pipe passed through the resident’s bathroom, there is no record the landlord raised a resident-specific work order. I It would have been reasonable for the landlord to identify the repair as both a communal and property issue.
11. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building, including drains, external pipes and sanitary fixtures. Its repairs policy states it aims to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 25 days. It should complete follow-on repairs within a reasonable timescale having regard to urgency, seriousness and vulnerability.
12. There was a significant delay before the landlord’s first inspection which took on 13 September 2024, 41 working days after the repair was raised on 19 July 2024. This fell outside of its repairs policy timescales. The records show the landlord did not complete the repair until 5 June 2025, just over 11 months later, which is far beyond a reasonable timeframe. Although the landlord acknowledged delays in its stage 2 response on 16 December 2024, it did not recognise the extent or seriousness of the failing.
13. In his online communal report, the resident said he had young children who needed daily bathroom use due to dry skin conditions. Landlord’s must assess hazards in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating Systems (HHSRS). There is no evidence the landlord triaged the report for sanitation risk or that it carried out a risk assessment. It would have been reasonable for it to consider the resident’s circumstances and take steps to mitigate any unsanitary conditions.
14. The landlord raised a work order on 9 October 2024 for a drainage operative to investigate within 20 working days. It raised a mould-wash work order on 12 November 2024, but the records show it completed this on 2 December 2024. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 November 2024. He said the leak remained unresolved after 4 months and he had received no support. He said he had bought a dehumidifier and was cleaning daily with antibacterial products.
15. The evidence does not show whether the landlord identified or assessed the sanitation hygiene risk. The records do not show it completed a timely inspection or that it promptly considered risk even though the resident had reported the wastewater was entering the bathroom. The evidence does not show the landlord offered support to mitigate the impact, such as assistance with cleaning, dehumidifier or a temporary move. Given the reports and the presence of young children, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the need to act sooner.
16. During the 13 September 2024 inspection, the operative could not identify the source of the leak and said a drainage operative would need to access multiple properties for a camera survey. We accept this increased the complexity of the repair and therefore the length of time needed to resolve it given it would require further coordination and planning. However, the evidence does not show the landlord had adequate oversight of the repair or its operatives, and nearly 2 months had passed since the original report.
17. The resident told us an operative attended unannounced on Sunday 29 September 2024. It is unclear whether the landlord notified other residents. The operative could not gain access to one flat and said it needed to visit again to complete the inspection. The record shows the landlord raised a work order with its drainage operative on 9 October 2024, to attend by the target date of 6 November. There is no evidence this was progressed, which was unreasonable.
18. The repair was outstanding a month later. The landlord chased the operative on 4 and 13 December 2024. The drainage contractor said it had made several visits and found the leak coming from a stack connector in an above flat which would require follow on works. There is no evidence the landlord coordinated access or works effectively. This contributed to delays and had a prolonged impact on the resident and his family.
19. The resident said communication was poor and he had to chase the landlord for updates. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to give notice of 24 hours for planned access. The evidence shows it did not notify the resident of when it cancelled the initial appointment, and operatives sometimes attended without notice. The landlord said in its stage 1 response on 9 September 2024 that this was because the repair was communal. However, the records show beyond its response, the landlord continued to disregard the resident’s concerns about the impact of the repair to his property. The lack of regular updates about the progress of the repair continued throughout. This was unreasonable because the landlord had established following its inspection on 13 September 2024 that it would need to access other properties which meant it knew the issue was not restricted to communal areas.
20. The evidence shows the landlord initially treated the matter as a communal repair only and did not raise a resident-specific work order for the resident’s property until October 2024. This narrowed the scope of its response to the repair and failed to recognise the detriment to the resident.  The lack of a resident-specific work order also hindered communication and was unreasonable. Although the landlord could not share details about repairs to other properties, this did not prevent it from giving regular progress updates to the resident.
21. The landlord has not demonstrated it kept adequate records to show its decisions, risk assessments or its progress. The repairs log does not accurately reflect the extent of the impact to the resident’s flat, and the residential specific work required at the early stages. There was limited evidence of oversight of its multi-job work orders, or a way to distinguish the residential work that considered the internal location of the waste stack because it classed the repair as communal. This was unreasonable because the evidence shows at stage 1 the landlord said it did not give priority to communal repair matters.
22. This undermined the landlord’s management of the repair and contributed to delays. The records do not show the landlord considered the long-term impact on the household. The resident has told us he had to clean repeatedly and use his own dehumidifier while the leak persisted. The resident has shared photographic evidence with us of the damp caused by the leak. We recognise the significant detriment caused by the distress, inconvenience, time and effort and the disruption to daily living conditions.
23. In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably, did not assess sanitation risks despite knowing young children lived at the property, and treated the matter as a communal repair only. This hindered coordination, caused missed or cancelled appointments and limited communication. There is no evidence of a risk assessment or that the landlord considered support options such as temporary accommodation. Poor record keeping about the nature and scope of the repairs, and the impact on the resident’s property reduced its oversight and contributed to ongoing delays after its stage 2 response.
24. When we identify failings, we must consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaints satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles – to act fairly, to put things right and to learn from its outcomes, as well as our remedies guidance.
25. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delayed repair, missed appointments, cleaning and the use of dehumidifier for a period of over 6 months. It offered £1,100 over its complaint responses to compensate up to the end of January 2025. The records show it did not fully resolve the leak until 5 June 2025, and it did not complete remedial and decorative works until 16 July 2025.
26. Although it went some way to put things right, the landlord’s offer of compensation did not account for the additional delays in its leak repair after its offer of compensation up to the end of January 2025. Therefore, it would be appropriate to offer redress that adequately reflects the adverse impact on the resident for the additional period up to when it resolved the leak 5 months later. Further, the landlord’s final response and offer of redress was not proportionate to reflect the extent of its failings and the adverse impact on the resident considering the resident had young children in the household. We therefore order the landlord to pay additional compensation and we have found maladministration.
27. In addition to the landlord’s compensation offer at stage 2, we order the landlord to pay a further amount of £1000, bringing the total amount of compensation to £2,100. This is to account for the additional delays after 30 January 2025 up to the completion of remedial works in July 2025, and is reflective of the landlord’s original compensation offer, together with an additional amount to recognise the distress and inconvenience of the delays for a vulnerable household.
28. We consider this to be reasonable and proportionate to reflect the resident’s additional distress and inconvenience, electricity costs and time and trouble in chasing the landlord to complete repairs after its final complaint response.
29. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in our investigation.
30. We have also ordered the landlord to carry out a case review of its handling of the resident’s reports and to implement any identified learning to improve future practice. The landlord must examine its processes regarding how it identifies vulnerabilities and promptly assesses risk, so it responds accordingly.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

31. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days respectively. The landlord’s policy states it will provide an explanation to the resident in writing if it needs more time to respond which should not exceed more than 10 working days at each stage. This aligns with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
32. The resident raised his complaint on 3 September 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it within 3 working days. The landlord’s policy in effect at the given time says it aims to acknowledge a complaint by the next working day. While its acknowledgment fell slightly outside of the timescale it set out in its policy, it aligns with the expectation of 5 working days set out in the Code.
33. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 September 2024 within 4 working days, which fell within the timescales set out in its policy. As the landlord did not unduly delay its response to the resident at stage 1, we do not consider the delay in its acknowledgment is sufficient to find a service failure. We also note the landlord has since updated its complaint handling policy to align with the Code in relation to its acknowledgment timeframes, which we consider to be reasonable.
34. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 November 2024. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint on the same working day, which it did. Its complaint policy at the time says within 24 hours of an escalation request, the landlord will discuss the outstanding issues with the customer to see if it can reach an agreement. If not, it says it will immediately escalate the complaint and acknowledge within 2 working days, which it did. The landlord provided its stage 2 response within 19 working days on 16 December 2024 which fell within the timescales it set out in its policy.
35. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 November 2024. The landlord offered the resident compensation outside of its formal complaint responses of £100 which it said was to recognise its failure to understand the inconvenience and impact to the resident and his time and effort in chasing the repairs. The resident informed the landlord an offer of compensation was premature, and the landlord should have waited to issue its stage 2 response.
36. The Code states that landlords should have processes in place to provide a remedy at any stage of its complaints process without the need for escalation. The landlord did not link the compensation offer to its complaint handling, and it incorporated this amount into its final offer of compensation to the resident at stage 2. Therefore, we have identified no complaint handling failings. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to reach a resolution with the resident before escalating the complaint to stage 2. When it was clear it could not reach an agreement, the landlord immediately escalated the resident’s complaint. The resident had a fair opportunity to set out his position, and it did not unduly delay the progress of the complaint or the landlord’s response.
37. We appreciate the offer of compensation outside of a formal stage response may have caused some confusion, and we will raise this with the landlord in our leaning section.
38. Ultimately, the landlord responded to the resident in accordance with the timescales and processes set out in its complaints handling policy. Therefore, we find no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

39. The landlord did not demonstrate it had a sufficient triage process to identify a potential sanitation hazard associated with a communal waste stack leak. It should have a process in place to identify the impact of communal sanitation reports for resident’s and to identify potential HHSRS type hazards at first contact.
40. Our Spotlight report ‘Repairing Trust’ (2025) highlights the importance of classifying work correctly. The handling of the repair issue as solely communal limited the landlord’s updates to the resident and management of the repair. The landlord should consider its processes to ensure its classification of the nature and scope of communal repairs at the outset aligns with the resident’s lived experience.

Knowledge information management – KIM (record keeping)

41. There was an absence of clear records of decision making and risk assessments. Our Spotlight report on KIM (2023) recognises the importance of accurate and complete records to support effective repair oversight and coordination.

Communication

42. The communal nature of the work order limited the landlord’s communication with the resident. The landlord should review its communication regarding communal repair matters to ensure it has a process in place to identify when communal matters impact on individual residents so it can provide regular updates that builds trust in the landlord, tenant relationship.

Complaint Handling

43. The landlord should ensure it clearly explains to the resident the purpose and status of any informal remedy offered outside of its formal complaints processes. It should ensure its staff differentiate between informal remedies and formal complaint outcomes.