London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202525090)

Decision
Case ID	202525090
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 April 2026

Background

Since 2019 the resident had reported several times to the landlord that the wooden front door was difficult to open and the windows were rotting at the property. In June and September 2024 the landlord raised repairs for the doors and windows. In October 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that it had missed 2 repair appointments. She stated that the doors and windows were unsafe for her family, particularly because of their vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to doors and windows.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to doors and windows.
We have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to doors and windows

In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord did not address or compensate the resident for a second missed appointment. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord did not acknowledge that it had twice failed to inspect the resident’s property for mould caused by the doors and windows. The landlord also failed to carry out a repair to the resident’s property for almost 3 months between April 2025 and June 2025. This is despite the resident having reported concerns about health and safety and the impact of the disrepair on the household’s vulnerabilities. Although the landlord acknowledged some failings it did not offer proportionate compensation for all the failings identified.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 when the resident made a new complaint on 4 April 2025.

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 a senior member of staff. 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 13 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £920 made up as follows: £870 for the landlord’s handling of repairs to doors and windows. £50 for the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This includes an additional payment of £370. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of direct payment to the resident by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments from the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that it has already paid.	No later than 13 May 2026
3	Damp and mould inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a damp and mould inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The landlord must provide us with a copy of the survey report by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.	No later than 13 May 2026
4	Communication order Following the damp and mould inspection the landlord should write to the resident to set out its position on whether the resident’s doors and windows should be prioritised on its component replacement programme or replaced as a responsive repair. It should communicate how it has considered the household’s circumstances in its decision making.	No later than 10 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord because it had not turned up to 2 appointments to repair the doors and windows. She said that the windows were in disrepair and the door was unsafe. The resident wanted them to be fixed urgently.
17 October 2024	The landlord did not send a written acknowledgement, but it telephoned the resident to discuss her complaint.
25 October 2024	The landlord sent an acknowledgement of the stage 1 complaint and its response. It apologised for missing an appointment on 16 October 2024. The landlord said it had rescheduled the appointment. For its delays to carry out the repair, and for the resident’s inconvenience, it offered the resident £140 in compensation.
04 April 2025	The resident complained to the landlord that the doors and windows were still in disrepair. She stated that the landlord’s contractor had told her the doors and windows should be replaced.
27 June 2025	The resident called the landlord to chase her complaint, and the landlord sent an acknowledgement that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2.
25 July 2025	The landlord sent a request to the resident asking to extend the stage 2 deadline.
22 August 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 decision. It said that in June 2025 it had carried out repairs to the front door which it left in working order. The door and windows would continue to be repaired until they were replaced on a programme of works or replacement became necessary outside of the programme. The resident’s door was not currently on a programme. The landlord offered the resident £410 in compensation for the wait for repairs due to vulnerabilities, and her time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 10 September 2025 the resident referred her complaint to us. She told us that the household has multiple health challenges and the disrepair of the doors and windows was a significant concern for safety and wellbeing. She was seeking replacement doors and windows and additional compensation.

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 to doors and windows
Finding	Maladministration

On 24 May 2019 the resident first reported to the landlord that the wooden front door was in disrepair. Between July 2019 and March 2023 the landlord raised 5 repairs for doors and windows.
In June 2024 the landlord raised a repair for the doors and windows. From the evidence it appears it rearranged the repair appointment twice. The second time it rearranged the repair from 18 June 2024 to 16 October 2024.
The landlord’s service standards says that for routine day to day repairs it will aim to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days. The resident’s repair was delayed by 4 months. This repair was outside of the landlord’s service standards.
On 16 October 2024 the resident complained to the landlord because it had not turned up for 2 repair appointments and she had not been told when the repair would take place. She said that the doors and windows needed to be fixed urgently because her household has disabilities.
On 25 October 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for not attending the appointment on 16 October 2024. It confirmed that it had rebooked the repair for 7 November 2024. The landlord offered the resident compensation that included:
1. £120 for the resident’s time, effort and inconvenience
2. £20 for the missed appointment.
The landlord’s compensation for the resident’s time, effort and inconvenience was appropriate to the failings it identified. However, it only acknowledged that it had missed 1 appointment. The evidence indicates that the landlord had failed to turn up to 2 appointments without communicating to the resident. Therefore, it would have been appropriate if the landlord had provided an additional £20 for the second missed appointment.
On 7 November 2024 the resident contacted the landlord after the repair. She said that the operative had informed her she needed new windows and doors and asked about the timescales for this work to take place. The landlord confirmed that the doors and windows had been selected for renewal, but it could not yet say when this would take place. The landlord told the resident that in the meantime she should report repairs as needed.
In January 2025 the resident raised health and safety concerns to the landlord because of the disrepair of the doors and windows, including damp and mould. She said that the disrepair was aggravating her health conditions, and she was concerned about the impact of mould on her children who have asthma. In April 2025 the resident complained to the landlord about mould again and reported issues with the door opening and locking.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that following a report of mould the landlord will visit the property within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged to visit the property to assess the mould after the resident’s reports.
On 25 June 2025 the landlord repaired the resident’s front door so that it opened more easily, and it replaced the door lock. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it attended this appointment on the same day that it was raised. However, this was almost 3 months after the resident had reported the issue.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy says that it can support vulnerable residents by prioritising repairs for health and safety reasons. There is no evidence that the landlord considered prioritising this repair or the replacement of the doors and windows because of the household’s vulnerabilities.
In its stage 2 complaint response in August 2025 the landlord said that the resident had not reported further issues since it had repaired the front door. It advised the resident that it did not yet have a timescale to replace the door on the programme, but it would continue to carry out repairs.
The landlord’s repair policy says that where age and wear and tear affect key components such as windows and doors, these will be replaced through planned programmes of work. Therefore, the landlord followed its policy when it added the resident’s doors and windows to its programme of works for replacement and committed to repair the components until they were replaced.
The landlord’s procedure for component renewal states that it will consider whether there are health and safety issues that need to be addressed by repairs while the component is waiting to be replaced. It also tells staff to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when making decisions.
The landlord did not address the mould around the windows as a health and safety issue to be addressed while the windows and doors were waiting to be replaced. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered the household’s vulnerabilities when delaying the replacement of windows and doors through responsive repairs in favour of programmed works.
The landlord recognised that the resident had been reporting issues with the door since 2019. Although the landlord did not identify any failings during stage 2 of the complaint process, it offered compensation of £290 for distress and inconvenience that the door issues had caused due to her vulnerabilities.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 2 of its process was reasonable redress for the landlord’s failings to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when considering whether to prioritise repairs or replacement works. However, it has not compensated the resident for failing to respond to her reports of mould in January and April 2025, or its failure to repair the resident’s front door for almost 3 months between April and June 2025.
We have ordered that the landlord pay further compensation of £320 to the resident. This is for the resident’s likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s lack of action concerning damp and mould when reported on 2 occasions, and by its delay to repair by almost 3 months. It also includes £20 for the missed appointment that was not addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. This amount is within the parameters set out in the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
The resident has updated us that the doors and windows have been measured up to be replaced. The landlord has confirmed that the work has been put on its 2026-2027 programme of works and the contractor will provide an update once the date for works is known.
The resident has told us that the landlord has not visited the property to inspect mould around the windows even though this Service sent the landlord an Awaab’s Law Notification Letter in December 2025. We have ordered the landlord to carry out a damp and mould inspection. We have also ordered the landlord to set out its position on whether the resident’s doors and windows should be prioritised on its programme or replaced as a responsive repair following its damp and mould inspection, and with consideration of the household’s vulnerabilities.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure refers to those in the Code.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 response in October 2024, the resident made a new complaint online on 4 April 2025 about the doors and windows. The landlord received the complaint and acknowledged it internally amongst its staff, but the landlord did not respond to the resident.
The resident chased her complaint on 27 June 2025. This led to the original complaint being escalated to stage 2. However, the landlord should have done this almost 3 months earlier.
The landlord did not address this complaint handling delay within the complaint process. Therefore, we have found there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 to the resident for her likely time and trouble caused by the landlord’s failure to recognise the escalation of her complaint. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our compensation guidance for a finding of service failure.

Learning

The landlord did not identify any learning from its complaint process. This was a missed opportunity from the landlord to improve its services for residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord sent evidence to us as part of our investigation. It also sent a timeline of the events connected to the complaint. Some of the events in the landlord’s timeline referred to communication with the resident that was not provided as part of the evidence request. The landlord should send copies of all relevant communication when it sends evidence to us.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that it does not have household information about the resident’s children living in the property. The resident told us that the landlord was given information about her children when she moved into the property. Therefore, it seems likely that the landlord did not record the household information correctly that was provided by the resident at that time.

Communication

On 16 October 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The landlord telephoned the resident the next day to acknowledge the complaint. However, it did not send a written acknowledgement. The landlord’s response sent 8 days later said it was a stage 1 acknowledgement and complaint response. While the Code does not specifically say that the landlord should send a written acknowledgement of complaints, it is generally considered best practice to do this. Also, calling the stage 1 complaint response an acknowledgement could have caused unnecessary confusion to the complaint process.