London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202217412)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her partner and 4 children. It is heated by an air source heating system. The resident complained to her landlord in December 2023 about how an ongoing issue with her heating had not been resolved. She said the heating system was not working properly, additional heaters the landlord had provided her were costly to run, and she could not be without heating as she had long covid and blood clots. She has reported she is in debt to her energy company of over £22,000 and would like compensated for this and her landlord’s failures. The resident was temporarily decanted in September 2025 to allow major works to be completed.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of
   1. A repair to the property’s heating system.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a repair to the property’s heating system.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

A repair to the property’s heating system

5. There has been an issue with the property’s air source heating system since the resident moved in, in 2013, which the landlord acknowledged. The evidence provided shows the heating system was never fit for purpose. Although work to improve the system was carried out, this was ineffective and the resident has not been able to heat the property adequately for a considerable period of time. She has also incurred high energy bills as a result of the issues with the system. There were significant delays in progressing the matter and the landlord should have worked at pace to resolve the issues or offered an earlier decant due to the health and safety risks. This was especially so as the resident reported vulnerabilities that were affected by a cold property. Although the landlord has offered compensation and eventually provided alternative accommodation, this does not go far enough to put things right.

The associated complaint

6. There were delays at both stages of the complaints procedure. The landlord also failed to adequately monitor actions agreed in the complaint responses and keep the resident updated. This is of particular concern given the landlord had identified serious defects in the property which amounted to a health and safety issue. Although the landlord offered compensation for the delays, this did not go far enough to put things right. It also failed to demonstrate learning or explain measures to prevent similar failures.

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.

What we have not looked at

7. The resident told us that the lack of heating caused her stress, affected her mental health and caused her household to become ill. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of a repair to the property’s heating system

8. The landlord has not disputed it was responsible for the heating system repairs. In a previous stage 1 complaint response (29 November 2022) it offered the resident £6623.33 compensation. The landlord has now recognised this payment had not been made and has told us it has now raised the payment. We have therefore made a recommendation to ensure the landlord pay this along with other compensation if it has not already done so.
9. The complaint was not escalated however the landlord advised the resident in December 2022 that a new heating system was required and it provided temporary heaters. This confirms that the landlord was aware it needed to take action to provide a permanent solution. We have therefore concentrated our investigation on events from December 2022. There is no evidence of any further action being taken or any decision making about the heating system until the resident followed up in August2023, which was a serious failing.
10. The resident wrote to the landlord in August 2023 as she said the communication had stopped once a previous member of staff had left. Although we do not have a record of it, the resident said engineers had attended and changed settings and moved sensors to the “wrong place”. The resident said this had not worked and it was forcing her heating system to go onto the more expensive immersion system resulting in bills of between £600 and £1000 per month.
11. The landlord arranged to have the property surveyed in September 2023 during which it identified:
    1. A health and safety issue in the property as the resident had not been able to heat the property to a comfortable level in winter months.
    2. The underfloor heating was not servicing all rooms and that a mechanical survey was required to establish options.
    3. An intrusive inspection to the external walls and roof was required to allow a decision on options and a thermographic survey.
    4. The small electric heaters (perhaps installed by the landlord) were insufficient for the property.
    5. The landlord should consider replacing or upgrading the glazing.
12. There is no evidence the landlord took any action to progress the survey’s recommendations after it was received. Considering the surveyor had highlighted a health and safety issue that needed resolving “immediately”, the landlord’s lack of action was unacceptable.
13. The resident reported that both the heating and hot water were not working in December 2024 which the landlord appropriately attended to as an emergency. The contractor’s opinion was that the air source heating system was only a 4-kilowatts system and it would need to be at least an 8-kilowatt system for the size of the property.
14. It appears this led to new internal discussions in December 2024. In the emails the landlord acknowledged the resident was living in a property that was expensive to heat and the air source heating system did not have adequate capacity to heat it, so it went into emergency mode on full cost electricity. It accepted that the heating costs could therefore be beyond most people’s budget. This would mean that through the landlord’s inaction there was a risk the resident could be placed into fuel poverty which was not considered by the landlord. This is of serious concern considering the issue had been ongoing since 2013.
15. In the emails the landlord agreed to only deal with the heating and consider the insulation later which did not reflect the specialist report recommendations from September 2023. A decant was approved in January 2025 to allow specialist contractors to fully assess the property. This would have been an appropriate step to take however the resident reports that although shown a property in January 2025, she was not moved until September 2025. This further delay of 8 months was unreasonable considering the landlord’s findings from September 2023 and its previous knowledge of the issues in the property.
16. It is clear from the evidence provided that the heating system installed by the developer was not fit for purpose. We have seen that the property was handed over to the landlord in 2012 and the resident moved in the following year. The National House Building Council (NHBC) insurance certificate shows the building work began in 2006 and the building was insured against defects for the standard 10 years plus an additional 2 years, therefore until 2018.
17. We requested evidence from the landlord that it had considered claiming under this insurance policy for the heating and insulation defects. It wasunable to evidence it had done so. Thisis of serious concern given that the policy enabled defects caused by the builder failing to meet NHBC requirements to be put right. While the outcome of any such claim cannot be known, this was a missed opportunity.
18. The resident complained of poor communication from the landlord, especially in regard to the decant. She has said she heard nothing from the landlord between January 2025 to August 2025 regarding the decant and we have also seen no evidence of adequate communication during this period. This was unreasonable and it left the resident unaware of when she would be moving which likely caused further distress and inconvenience.
19. The landlord failed to acknowledge the household vulnerabilities highlighted by the resident in her complaint. She told it about her vulnerabilities and how the cold affected her more than someone without them. There were also 4 children within the household (3 of which were school age). There is no evidence the landlord considered its own vulnerable residents or repair policies. Its policies state that it would adjust its service standards where a delay would put the resident at risk because of their condition. The landlord failed to evidence it had considered its own policy which was not a reasonable and customer focused response.
20. Given the failings outlined above, it was appropriate that the landlord upheld the complaint and took steps to put things right. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in January 2025 acknowledged the heating system was not fit for purpose and that because of the heating system being undersized, it was “prohibitively expensive” to run. However, the landlord’s offer of an apology and compensation of £1040 did not go far enough given how long the issue had been ongoing and impact on the household.
21. We have therefore made an order for additional compensation to be paid to the resident. We have awarded a total of £4,125, comprising £1,500 per full year during which the resident did not have access to a suitable heating system for her property. This covers the period from December 2022 to September 2025 and includes the £1240 previously offered by the landlord. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance where we may order compensation of over £1000 where there have been serious failings by the landlord that have had a severe long-term impact on the resident.
22. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have offered compensation towards increased energy costs from December 2022 to September 2025. It previously calculated a payment between 2013 and 2019, as it believed the heating issue had been resolved in 2019. The evidence provided would indicate there was little to no improvement in the system’s ability to heat the property to a reasonable temperature. This would go some way towards placing the resident in the position she would have been in, had she been provided with a heating system that was fit for purpose. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to make an additional payment towards the increased energy costs using a similar calculation as before.
23. There were a series of significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating issues. It is clear the property has significant defect issues that have been present from the time of its construction and the landlord failed in its obligation to provide a property with adequate heating. It knew the heating system was “prohibitively expensive to run” yet failed to offer an appropriate response. Its surveyor told it in September 2023 that the property was a health and safety risk in the winter months but it failed to act quickly enough following this and the resident was not moved for another 2 years. Due to this, we make a finding of severe maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to consider the findings of this investigation and produce a report showing lessons learnt and actions it can take to prevent a recurrence of the failings.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages of its procedure. It also requires a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, with a possible 10-day extension, and a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days, with a possible 20-day extension. This policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
25. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint on 11 December 2023 within the required 5 working days. However, it delayed its stage 1 complaint response by more than 2 months beyond the 10-day timeframe. Although the landlord apologised in its stage 1 response on 6 March 2024, it did not explain the cause of the delay or show evidence it considered any redress which was unreasonable. It also failed to provide a timeframe or schedule for the proposed works, which considering the health and safety issues identified was an unreasonable response.
26. The landlord did not acknowledge or evidence consideration of the resident’s reported medical conditions, which she said were affected by the cold. It promised to keep the resident updated but failed to do so. This indicates poor complaint monitoring and was particularly concerning in this case given the health and safety hazards that had been identified in the property.
27. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation of 6 September 2024 until 1 November 2024 which was 35 working days beyond the 5-day limit set by its own policy.
28. The landlord did not demonstrate learning from its service failures. Its stage 2 complaint response on 13 January 2025 was 28 days beyond the 20-day timeframe allowed. Although it explained that the escalation was not passed to the correct department until 1 November 2024, it did not address the subsequent delay. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have kept the resident informed and requested extensions in line with its policy and the Code. Its failure to do so was not reasonable.
29. The landlord’s £120 compensation offer was insufficient given the repeated delays and failure to follow its policy and the Code. Despite identifying serious defects in the property which amounted to a health and safety issue, the landlord failed to adequately monitor actions agreed in the complaint responses and keep the resident updated. It also failed to demonstrate learning or explain measures to prevent similar failures.

Due to this we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay a total of £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount reflects the likely impact on the resident and aligns with the landlord’s compensation policy. It is also in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident. We have also recommended that the landlord considers re-training its staff on complaint handling, with regard to the Code.

Learning

30. The landlord must ensure the vulnerabilities of a resident are considered in any decision-making process to allow it to safeguard these residents. It must learn from this complaint to ensure it has procedures in place that would prevent similar failures happening again.

Communication

31. Where a landlord commits to maintain regular contact with the resident it must follow this through. If it had maintained this commitment, it may have helped resolve the issues reported sooner for the resident.