London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202337541)

Decision
Case ID	202337541
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 May 2026

Background

The resident reported that his wet room was not draining properly. He said this posed a health and safety risk to himself and his carers, and he had already had a fall. The resident had several physical health conditions. He passed away 13 months after he brought his complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs

The landlord responded to the resident’s requests for repair within an appropriate time and its decision not to install a shower door as a repair was reasonable. But it did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and there is no record it considered repairing or replacing the floor.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not meet the timescales within its policy. But it apologised and offered compensation.

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 executor of the resident’s estate/the resident’s next of kin for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: 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 24 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs. This includes the £200 offered during the complaints process. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. This must be paid directly to the resident’s estate by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of its payment/attempts to make payment by the due date.	No later than 24 June 2026
3	Repairs order The landlord must confirm whether there have been any further reports from the current residents of the property about issues with the wet room floor. If so, it must survey the floor and consider whether it should repair or replace it. The landlord must send us evidence of: its confirmation of any recent repair logs for the wet room floor its diagnosis of the floor issue (if there are recent reports) a timeframe for completion of any required works	No later than 24 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident’s estate £40 compensation as offered during the complaint process in relation to its complaint handling.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 November 2023	The resident made his complaint. He was unhappy that the landlord did not update him on repairs. And it did not respond to his request for a bifold door.
16 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It told the resident it would inspect the bathroom on 5 February 2024. It offered £100 as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience of having to raise a complaint.
7 February 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He was not happy that although the landlord had surveyed the bathroom more than once, it had not started any repairs. He said that many of the appointments the landlord made were unnecessary.
13 February 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: a plumber would attend on 8 March 2024 it could not see any appointments other than the inspection on 5 February 2024 it would not install a bi-fold shower door as this was an adaptation, not a repair it offered £240 compensation made up of £100 distress and inconvenience, £100 time and trouble as offered at stage 1 and £40 for complaint handling
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident did not feel the landlord addressed his concerns. He believed it should have installed the shower door to help drainage in the wet room.
11 May 2026	The landlord informed us that the resident had passed away.

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 requests for repairs
Finding	Service failure

On 4 March 2023 the landlord inspected the wet room and found no drainage issues. Its records say that water collected in the corner of the room due to an uneven floor. It noted the resident’s request for a bifold shower door. But as there was not already a shower door present, it did not raise this as a repair.
This was consistent with its repairs policy which says the landlord is responsible for bathroom fixtures and fittings that it has installed. It must also ensure the bathroom is safe and functional for use. The inspection confirmed that the bathroom was functioning as it should and there had never been a shower door installed. It acknowledged that the floor was uneven.
On 17 January 2024 the resident reported a rusted bathroom sink which affected the function. On 5 February 2024 the landlord inspected and noted no problem with the sink. It also logged that the resident again requested a shower door and confirmed it did not class this as a repairs request.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether it could support the resident’s request for a shower door under its aids and adaptations policy. The policy says it may fund minor adaptations which do not require an occupational therapy referral. The landlord knew of the resident’s vulnerabilities so should have considered whether it could install the shower door as a minor adaptation.
The landlord acknowledged the stress that the situation caused. But it did not fully consider the resident’s pre-existing health conditions which affected his overall health and mobility. The resident told the landlord that he was concerned about his safety and that of his carers given the standing water. And it should have signposted him to occupational health. This would have given the resident the opportunity to apply for support with making the bathroom more suitable for his needs.
There is no evidence that the landlord fully assessed the wet room floor or considered updating it to reduce the likelihood of standing water. Doing so may have given the resident some reassurance that the landlord took his concerns seriously.
The landlord offered £200 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble related to its handling of the resident’s requests for repairs. It is positive that the landlord offered compensation, but the amount it offered did not reflect the level of distress and inconvenience for the resident considering his vulnerabilities. It also did not investigate the original issue with the wet room floor, so the original complaint issue was unresolved.
For the reasons above, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £350 in compensation. This is to reflect the impact on the resident, and the distress and inconvenience he experienced due to the landlord’s handling of the repair requests. This is inclusive of the £200 it offered at stage 2. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our compensation guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
The landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 47 working days after the acknowledgement. In this response it offered compensation for inconvenience relating to the repair requests but did not acknowledge or compensate for the complaint delay.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response within its policy timescales. It also offered £40 compensation for inconvenience related to its complaint handling. This was appropriate and consistent with its policy and our compensation guidance.
For the reasons above, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. We make this finding on the basis that this compensation is paid.

Learning

The landlord did not identify its complaint handling delays at the earliest opportunity. It should consider our Spotlight on Complaints about Repairs (2019) to improve consistency in its approach to complaints and compensation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should consider how it monitors requests from residents which are outside the scope of its repairs policy. This includes where it has signposted to other departments or outside agencies.

Communication

The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s contacts, but its communication was not clear enough to manage his expectations. It should have explained its position on the adaptations he requested more clearly. This would have helped him understand his options and may have reduced the need for repeated contact for updates.