London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202409018)

Decision
Case ID	202409018
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	8 May 2026

Background

1. On 19 January 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that the lever to switch her bath to shower was not working properly. The landlord has recorded physical support needs for the resident. It noted she had difficulty using the bath. The resident told us that this is due to a tear in her spine.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a bath/shower lever repair.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A bath/shower lever repair.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Bath/shower lever repair

5. The landlord did not clearly acknowledge and apologise to the resident for failing to identify her repair should have been prioritised. It did not identify learning from this. While it awarded compensation, this did not fully recognise the impact of its failings.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed logging the resident’s complaint. It did not apologise for its delayed stage 2 response or communicate with the resident in advance about 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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 05 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £475 made up as follows:  £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of a bath/shower level repair.  £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its complaint handling. 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 05 June 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 January 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said it had delayed the repair to her shower. She said she had previously been told that it would move the repair forward, but this was not done.
6 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised that the resident had needed to complain. It said a recall for the repair had been booked for 13 March 2024. It awarded her £80 for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced. The following day it increased its award to £200.
7 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said that due to her disability, the repair should have been treated as an emergency. She said she had made a telephone calls and emailed it and she considered it had taken too long to resolve the repair.
25 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said all repairs were now complete. It set out an increased compensation award of £325. This was made up of £300 for distress and inconvenience and £25 for the delay acknowledging the stage 2 complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the delayed repair had a significant impact on her family. She said she relied on her children to help her in and out of the bath over a 6-week period. She said this was uncomfortable for them all. She wanted increased 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 a bath/shower lever repair.
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident reported the repair to the landlord on 19 January 2024. At the time the landlord aimed to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days. However, the repairs policy stated that service standards could be adjusted for vulnerable residents where delays posed a risk. Its repairs policy sets out that it aims to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.
8. When she complained on 23 January 2024, the resident said the repair was booked for 9 February 2024 and that, despite asking for it to be brought forward, the landlord confirmed the original date remained.
9. We do not have a record of the conversation the resident had with the landlord at this time. However, she told it in her communication of 23 January 2024 that she wanted it to move the repair forward. She said that she could not use her bath. The landlord also had vulnerabilities recorded for her. It had noted that she had difficulty using the bath. But there is no evidence it considered prioritising the repair.
10. The landlord took no action until the resident contacted it again on 29 January 2024. Although the repair moved to 3 February 2024, the resident said the landlord failed to attend. It did not address this in its complaint response or explain the missed appointment.
11. The landlord attended on 5 February 2024 and recorded the shower as working. However, the resident reported that the issue persisted and informed the landlord on 13 February 2024 that the shower was not working again. Records noted her severe disability and the need to bring the recall appointment forward, but there is no evidence the landlord arranged an earlier visit, even after she chased the repair again on 21 February 2024.
12. The landlord only changed the repair priority to “emergency” on 29 February 2024. It noted then that it had not followed the correct process for the urgency of the repair. It attended the following day, but it did not clearly record what work was completed at this time. However, the resident told the landlord in her subsequent complaint that the landlord had completed a temporary repair. It attended again on 13 March 2024 to complete a further repair. Again, the landlord’s records do not detail what work it completed.
13. The resident later confirmed that work completed on 13 March 2024 fully resolved the issue. But she questioned why it had taken the landlord from 19 January 2024, when she had first reported issues. Given her recorded vulnerabilities and repeated contact, the landlord should have prioritised the repair sooner.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord awarded £300 for distress and inconvenience. This went some way towards recognising the impact of its failings. However, it did not clearly acknowledge its failure to prioritise the repair or demonstrate any learning to prevent such issues reoccurring. Doing so would also have provided some reassurance to the resident. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the bath/shower lever repair.
15. The resident said that during the 6 weeks without a working shower, she relied on her children for assistance getting into and out of the bath. She told us this was uncomfortable for both her and her children. She said she sometimes needed to bathe more than once a day due to her disability. We have considered her vulnerabilities. We have also considered the time and trouble she spent chasing and waiting for repairs. Taking all circumstances into account, we ordered an increased award of £400 to fully recognise the impact on the resident and her household. This award is in line with our compensation guidance where there is no permanent impact on the resident.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

16. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. We have found that the landlord’s published complaints policy complied with the Code in respect of timescales and the definition of a complaint.
17. The resident complained to the landlord about the shower repair on 23 January 2024. But there is no evidence it raised a complaint in line with its policy and the Code. It did not log a complaint until 5 March 2024. That was only after the resident contacted it again expressing her dissatisfaction. In line with its policy and the Code, the landlord should have responded to the resident’s earlier contact as a complaint. It missed this opportunity to fully address and resolve her concerns under its complaints process.
18. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within timescales but delayed its stage 2 response until 25 April 2024. That was 14 working days outside timescales set out in its complaints policy. Although it awarded £25 for the delay acknowledging the complaint, it did not properly apologise for its delayed complaint response. Nor is there evidence it communicated with the resident about this delay in advance. These were further complaint handling failings.
19. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered that it make an increased award to the resident of £75. This is in line with the range set out in our compensation guidance for complaint handling failings that have no permanent impact.

Learning

20. The landlord should take account of vulnerabilities recorded for resident’s when deciding on a repair priority.
21. The landlord should identify learning from failings to provide reassurance to residents and to avoid issues being repeated.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s repair records did not clearly detail what work was completed during all its attendances. It should do so to show what it has done to address repair issues.

Communication

23. The landlord did not appropriately communicate with the resident when its stage 2 complaint response was delayed.