London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202308388)

Decision
Case ID	202308388
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 April 2026

Background

1. The resident raised several concerns to the landlord about her home including pests, fly tipping, and faults with a communal door. She contacted the landlord on multiple occasions. We have investigated 3 complaints within this determination.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of pests.
   2. Concerns about fly tipping. 
   3. Reports of door repairs.
   4. Complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of pests.
   2. Concerns about fly tipping.
4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of door repairs.
5. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of pests

6. There were avoidable delays doing the proofing works that the landlord committed to within its final complaint response. Its communication with the resident was inconsistent.

 

Fly tipping

7. The landlord arranged timely removal of fly tipped items upon receiving reports from the resident. However, it failed to evidence full consideration of preventative measures despite repeated incidents.

Door repairs

8. The landlord failed to complete communal door repairs within its published timescales. Some of its repair records were insufficient. It communicated poorly with the resident about reoccurring faults.

The complaints

9. The landlord did not respond within the timescales set out in its complaints policy or evidence learning from the complaints. However, it recognised failings and offered redress in line with our compensation guidance.

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. It must have due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 18 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £740 made up as follows: £490 for the delay, distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of pests £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of door repairs This includes the compensation offered by the landlord for the pest issue within its final complaint response.   It must pay the compensation directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 18 May 2026
3	Action plan The landlord must write to the resident with an action plan setting out how it will address fly tipping at the block.	No later than 18 May 2026
4	Clarification order The landlord must write to the resident with a clear summary of the current position of the communal door repairs. It must include the details of any outstanding work and timescales for completion, if applicable.	No later than 18 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £240 it offered within its stage 2 complaint response for its complaint handling failings. We have made a reasonable redress finding on the basis that it pays this to her.
The landlord should review how it manages repeat communal repair issues to ensure it identifies and resolves underlying faults.
The landlord should consider improving communication with residents where communal repairs give rise to safety or security concerns, particularly where issues are prolonged.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to offer an in-person meeting at the block to discuss any other concerns.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 January 2023	Complaint 1 The resident complained that the communal door slammed and the intercom made a buzzing noise. She said she reported the issues around 4 weeks earlier, and the landlord had not resolved it.
4 April 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the door was not opening and closing properly and people were entering the block who did not live there.
5 April 2023	The landlord said contractors attended on 21 and 31 March 2023, completed repairs, and left the door in working order. It said that because the resident reported that the door was still not working, it had raised a work order with a different contractor.
11 April 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised to the resident for the delays in its repairs service. It stated that it had raised a job with its contractor to try to resolve the issues with the door. It acknowledged that it had escalated the complaint to the second stage of its complaint procedure.
5 December 2023	The landlord sent a second stage 2 acknowledgment letter to the resident, explaining that it would issue a stage 2 complaint response which would address 3 of her complaints.
9 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It stated it had resolved several work orders for the communal door over the past 18 months. It said it had no definitive evidence of a defect or interference, so could not identify the cause of the issues. It confirmed it would arrange a joint inspection with a housing lead and a surveyor. It acknowledged the resident’s proximity to the door and her frustration caused by slamming. It said it would continue door maintenance as required and awarded £140 compensation in relation to complaint 1. This comprised £70 for the delay escalating the complaint and £70 for complaint handling failures.
23 May 2023	Complaint 2 The resident complained to the landlord about a suspected rat in her kitchen, fly tipping outside of her window, and disturbances from her neighbour’s children.
31 May 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
19 July 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed it had spoken to the resident’s neighbour and was working with them to resolve personal matters within their home. It informed the resident that the neighbour had a child with a disability and was aware the noise was disturbing others. It asked her for empathy.
24 July 2023	The resident escalated her complaint.
5 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It explained that it would issue a stage 2 response which would address 3 of her complaints.
9 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it managed the resident’s reports of neighbour issues under a previous antisocial behaviour case. It asked her to provide noise recordings and diary sheets, but she did not have time to do this. It confirmed it had addressed rodent reports under a separate complaint. It advised the resident how to report fly-tipping. It awarded £30 compensation for the delay escalating complaint 2.
22 September 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said a pest control work order was outstanding because its contractors did not hear back from the resident when they text her. It asked whether vermin were still present, as further pest control visits were needed before proofing works.
25 September 2023	The resident asked the landlord why she received a stage 1 response when she thought her complaint was at stage 2. She said she does not stay in the property due to her phobia, and she wanted the landlord to replace her cooker.
5 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2. It explained that it would issue a stage 2 response which would address 3 of her complaints.
9 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It summarised its pest control actions in the property and communal areas. It said there was no evidence the property was uninhabitable and confirmed contractors would arrange additional proofing works. It apologised for delays and offered £510 compensation in relation to complaint 3. This comprised: £200 for delay £160 for distress £80 for inconvenience £20 for escalation delay £50 for complaint handling failures
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response, and its total compensation offer of £680. To resolve her complaint, she wants it to be accountable and deal with all the issues.

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 the resident’s reports of pests
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

10. The resident told us about previous pest issues in her home. We have no powers to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. We have seen no evidence that she raised a complaint or completed its internal complaints procedure about its handling of reports of pests in the years preceding this case. Therefore, we have focused our investigation on her reports of pests from 2023.
11. We are aware the resident decided to temporarily move out of the property due to the pest issues and fell into arrears with her rent. She was unhappy the landlord acted regarding this. It considered this matter within a separate complaint, which she has not referred to us.

What we have considered

12. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for pest infestations in communal areas and rat infestations within tenanted homes. It is also responsible for mice infestations where residents have been unable to resolve the issue themselves or where there is evidence of a wider problem. The resident’s reports, including the sighting of an alleged rat in March 2023, fell within these responsibilities.
13. When the resident reported seeing a rat in March 2023 and explained that she had a phobia, the landlord asked appropriate questions to understand the issue and raised a pest control work order. This was a reasonable and proportionate response. When she later raised concerns about air brick covers coming loose, which could provide entry points for rodents, it appropriately followed up with its contractor and raised a work order to replace the covers.
14. Evidence provided shows the landlord responded throughout 2023 by arranging pest control visits in the resident’s home and communal areas, raising repairs for vents and gaps, and commissioning some proofing works. In November 2023, a pest controller noted an odour consistent with a dead mouse but could not locate it and conducted a follow‑up visit the following month. Here, they identified no rodent activity. The landlord was entitled to rely on the pest controller’s professional opinion.
15. We have seen no independent evidence to show that pests were inside the resident’s cooker. However, the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances by agreeing to reimburse her for a professional oven clean, subject to the provision of a VAT receipt. This was an appropriate remedy.
16. The effectiveness of the landlord’s response was undermined by shortcomings in communication and follow‑through. There were issues with short‑notice appointments, cancellations, and uncertainty about whether the resident had contacted contractors directly. It explained to her that it arranged non‑emergency appointments with at least 24 hours’ notice. This approach, while in line with its processes, did not sufficiently consider her phobia of rodents and that she had moved herself out of the property. In view of this, clearer communication and more proactive coordination of appointments would have been appropriate to minimise distress.
17. At stage 2, the landlord confirmed it would arrange proofing works recommended by pest control and advised the resident that, due to the property’s proximity to a railway line, rodent issues could reoccur. It was reasonable for it to manage her expectations and explain what steps she should take if problems reoccurred. It also offered her compensation of £200 for the pest control delays, £160 for distress, and £80 for inconvenience. This was in accordance with its compensation policy which allows for discretionary compensation but does not reference specific amounts or ranges. This was also in line with our compensation guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected a resident.
18. It is a concern that in January 2024, the landlord did not arrange the proofing works as promised at stage 2 or adequately monitor them through to completion. This was a failure to deliver the outcome to which it had committed. It also caused avoidable inconvenience to the resident as she chased for the works. For these reasons, we have made a failure finding and ordered an additional £50 compensation.
19. When the resident reported further rodent activity at the end of January 2024, the landlord acted promptly by raising a new pest control order within 2 days, and an inspection shortly after. It also arranged proofing works. While subsequent delays were partly due to cancelled appointments and access issues, clearer explanation of the implications of cancellations and closer oversight of the process would have been reasonable.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fly tipping
Finding	Service failure

20. In complaint 2, the resident complained about issues with her neighbour in addition to fly tipping and pests. Within her submission, she did not ask us to consider how the landlord managed issues with her neighbour. Therefore, we have not investigated this further.
21. The landlord’s estate management policy requires the landlord to keep communal areas clean, safe, and well maintained, to conduct regular inspections, and to act promptly where issues arise. This includes enforcing a zero‑tolerance approach to goods left in communal areas, arranging removal, and addressing related health and safety concerns.
22. While the landlord’s policy does not contain specific response times for removing fly tipped items, we found it arranged removal within a reasonable period on each occasion. Additionally, in June 2023, contractors noted that the caretaker had already removed the items, demonstrating effective estate management. The landlord also told the resident how to report fly‑tipping, asked for information about those responsible, and wrote to all residents of the block to remind them of appropriate waste disposal. These actions were proportionate.
23. The landlord provided estate inspection logs for 2021 and 2022 showing monthly inspections. We note the resident believes that the log was signed without a thorough inspection taking place. We cannot determine this either way.
24. The landlord did not provide inspection records for 2023, which limits assurance about ongoing monitoring during the relevant period. The resident supplied footage showing repeated fly‑tipping, an individual using the area as a toilet, and alleged drug users accessing the bin area. It took action to secure the bins. It has not evidenced further consideration of preventative measures.
25. At stage 2, the landlord said the resident installed her own CCTV and it had refused her request to reimburse her costs. However, it did not provide evidence of its communications with her or records showing how it reached that decision. Without evidence explaining how it considered the request or assessed CCTV or alternatives, we cannot be satisfied that the decision was transparent or reasonable.
26. We recognise the challenges posed by the block’s location and factors outside the landlord’s control. However, given the repeated incidents and supporting evidence, it ought to have shown clearer consideration of steps to limit reoccurrence and demonstrated better communication with the resident. Taken altogether, we have made a failure finding and ordered it to write to her with a clear action plan setting out how it will address fly‑tipping at the block.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of door repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

27. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her subject access request would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider. We have not considered this further.
28. Within the resident’s initial contact with us, she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of mould in a cupboard. We have not seen evidence that she complained to the landlord about this at the time or that it considered her concerns through its internal complaint procedure. As such, we have not considered this matter within this determination. We have recommended that the landlord contacts her directly to discuss any outstanding issues.

What we have considered

29. The landlord is responsible for keeping the communal entrance doors working sufficiently. From September 2022, records show several repeated problems with the door and intercom, including reports that the door did not close or lock properly and was being slammed by other residents.
30. Repair records indicate the landlord repaired the intercom in September 2022, but the problems returned soon after. It later closed a work order because it said it could not contact the resident. Given that this was a communal door, it ought to have taken ownership of the repair instead of closing it. This caused an avoidable delay and frustration.
31. Delays continued into 2023. Contractors did not overhaul the main door until March 2023, well beyond the landlord’s 25‑working‑day repair timescale set out in its repairs policy. Despite several visits, the problems continued. It is not clear whether the issues reported in April 2023 were fully fixed or treated as new repairs. Poor records make it difficult to understand what work was done and whether it solved the root problem.
32. Between June and August 2023, the landlord identified faults with the power supply unit and the lock and arranged further repairs. Although waiting for parts was outside its control, it did not show that it kept the resident informed or explained delays, despite her repeated contact about security concerns. Internal emails show contractors and staff were unclear about what work was needed, which delayed repairs further and suggests weak oversight by the landlord.
33. The evidence provided to us indicates the landlord kept insufficient records. Information such as photos, inspection reports, completion notes, and explanations for continuing faults was missing or unclear. This became more evident during the stage 2 complaint, when the complaint handler had to ask internally for information to be clarified. Additionally, a surveyor’s inspection in February 2024 raised concerns that the door had no working lock or closer, yet it provided no clear records or outcome from this visit.
34. These failures impacted the resident. She said she felt unsafe because people who did not live in the block, including “rough sleepers,” could enter the building. Problems continued after the landlord completed its complaints process, showing that the issues were still not resolved. On one occasion, she reported that she could not leave the building because the door failed.
35. Overall, although the landlord took some action, repeated delays, poor communication, and insufficient records over a lengthy period amount to a failure. It did not manage the door repairs effectively or reassure the resident that it was properly addressing her safety concerns. To put this right, we have ordered it to pay her £250 compensation. This reflects the distress and inconvenience caused and is in line with our compensation guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints
Finding	Reasonable redress

36. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by 10 and 20 working days respectively in agreement with the resident.
37. The landlord’s policy at the time of the complaint was not in line with the Code in terms of its stage 2 extension timescale of 10 working days. However, it has since amended this and is now compliant. The other timescales were in line with the Code.
38. In complaint 1, the landlord issued its stage 1 response 69 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. It then issued its stage 2 response 189 working days after she requested escalation. These delays were substantial and far exceeded the expected timescales in its complaints policy, with no evidence of agreed extensions.
39. In complaint 2, the landlord issued its stage 1 response after 40 working days. The response did not fully address the complaint, as it failed to respond to concerns about fly‑tipping and pests. The stage 2 response followed 118 working days after escalation, well outside of policy requirements of 20 working days.
40. In complaint 3, the landlord issued its stage 1 response within 13 working days, slightly outside of policy timescales of 10 working days. The stage 2 response was issued 73 working days after escalation, representing a further significant delay.
41. Across all 3 complaints, the landlord responded late at both stages and did not demonstrate that it had learnt from earlier complaint handling failures. It also did not always acknowledge the complaint in a timely manner. The repetition of similar delays is inconsistent with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
42. The landlord’s communication did not consistently support effective management of the complaint. Updates were unclear or untimely, and extensions were not proactively agreed, resulting in avoidable time and trouble for the resident and likely frustration. While it acknowledged that overlapping issues across staff and cases caused some confusion, communication could have been managed more effectively overall.
43. The landlord accepted responsibility for its complaint handling shortcomings and offered compensation of £240 within its final complaint response. This recognition of fault and attempt to put things right was appropriate. Had it not acknowledged its shortcomings or offered redress; we would have made a failure finding.
44. The £240 compensation offered by the landlord is consistent with our compensation guidance for complaint handling delays of weeks or months, affecting timely resolution of the dispute.

 

Learning

General learning

45. It is important for landlords to see complaints as opportunities to recover failings. Commitments made in the complaint process need to be completed, otherwise it compounds the breakdown of trust. When outlining commitments within complaint responses, landlords must ensure they adhere to these. This offers reassurance to residents. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

46. Good record keeping ensures that repairs and works are managed effectively without the need for repeat reports or unreasonable delays. A clear guide or strategy for repairs teams and operatives is likely to ensure contractors know what to record and that repairs and complaints staff can access it. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management. 

Communication

47. Effective communication is vital. Poor communication leaves residents uninformed, leading to frustration and repeated contacts. Clear, timely updates help manage expectations, reduce repeat contact, and highlight areas where processes or oversight need improvement.