London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202506731)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. Her complaint concerns the handling of repairs to the porch at her property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs to a porch.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a porch.
   2. 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 repairs to a porch

4. The landlord acknowledged there were repair delays and that its communication had been poor. It apologised for these failings and awarded compensation. However, the landlord provided incorrect information at stage 2. This contributed to further delays to the repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord followed the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The landlord followed its policy and awarded compensation commensurate with the scale of the complaint handling failure.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and aim to complete routine repairs in 25 calendar days. In January 2025 the resident reported damage to the porch and exposed wires. The landlord followed its repairs policy, handled the report as an emergency and visited within 24 hours.
7. On 6 March 2025 a contractor did temporary repairs to the porch. This was 36 days after the resident reported the repair and outside the target time in its repairs policy.
8. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would visit on 8 April 2025 and carry out the repairs as soon as possible. After the visit the resident told the landlord she was unhappy as she was told a surveyor would attend but it had been a contractor. The landlord apologised and said it had not intended to mislead the resident about the nature of the visit.
9. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for repair delays and inadequate communication. It awarded £300 and said the repair would be done on 6 May 2025.
10. A contractor attended on 6 May 2025. The purpose of the visit was to inspect the repairs and quote for the works. This was contrary to the landlord’s stage 2 response, which said the repairs would be completed on 6 May 2025.
11. The landlord said the repair delays were due to the resident’s behaviour. After the visit the contractor told the landlord the resident was rude and said it would not return to the property. While the need to find an alternative contractor is likely to have caused delay, the initial delay was due to the landlord providing inaccurate information at stage 2.
12. The resident contacted the landlord for updates on 7, 8 and 20 May 2025. There is no evidence the landlord explained why the repairs were not completed when the contractor visited.
13. The resident referred her complaint to us on 20 May 2025. She said she wanted the repairs completed, and the scaffolding removed. The resident said the landlord did not understand how stressful the situation was. She said she was concerned the landlord had ‘flagged’ her account due to her behaviour. The resident said she was concerned the porch could collapse on her grandchild. She said the scaffolding meant the windows could not be fully opened and the house was excessively hot.
14. The repairs were completed on 15 July 2025. This was 10 weeks later than when the landlord said they would be done. The landlord attributed the delay to the resident’s behaviour. However, the landlord gave inaccurate information in its stage 2 response, and this also contributed to the delay. As a result, we have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a porch. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay £50 additional compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

15. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets the timeframes for the landlord to acknowledge a complaint and send a response at stage 1 and stage 2.
16. On 27 March 2025 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the porch. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 March 2025 and sent its stage 1 response on 3 April 2025. This was within the timeframes required by the Code.
17. On 6 April 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on the same day. It sent its stage 2 response on 25 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and provided a stage 2 response within the timeframes required by the Code.
18. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the lack of updates and awarded £45 compensation. This amount is within the range in our remedies guidance for complaint handling. This was in accordance with the landlord’s policy on discretionary compensation.
19. Given the observations above, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

20. The landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations and did not always provide accurate information about the purpose of repair visits.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. No issues with the landlord’s recordkeeping were identified.

Communication

22. When the landlord scheduled repair visits it did not always provide the resident with accurate information about the purpose of the visit.