London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202317968)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317968

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

29 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a break-in at the resident’s property.

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident had a secure tenancy and lived in a flat within a block with her children. The block is owned by a freeholder. The landlord has a lease with the freeholder. A managing agent manages the communal areas of the block on behalf of the freeholder.
The resident told the landlord on 16 June 2023 that there had been a break-in at her property. The landlord noted that the police had concluded it was an isolated incident with a perpetrator unknown to the resident. Subsequently the local authority did not find that the resident needed to move to temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property following the break-in and the resident was temporarily moved to a hotel by the landlord whilst electrical works were completed. The resident told the landlord she felt unsafe returning to the property. The landlord signposted her to the alternative housing options that could be available to her.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 3 July 2023. She believed the perpetrator had been able to access the block due to the communal door not being repaired. She said the electrics in the property were not safe and that there was no water.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1. It summarised the actions it had taken, including restoring the electrics and water supply. It explained the managing agent was responsible for communal repairs on behalf of the freeholder.
The resident contacted us as she disagreed with the stage 1 response. The landlord responded at stage 2 and reiterated the steps it had taken to support the resident and to complete the works it was responsible for. It acknowledged its communications could have been clearer and that it had delayed in assigning a support worker. It offered compensation for these failings.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure the resident moved to a new property in January 2024 by way of mutual exchange. She subsequently referred her case to us and said the incident would not have happened if the communal door had been fixed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We are not able to comment on what may or may not have been the cause of a crime being committed, or to speculate if actions taken may have prevented a crime being committed. We note at the time of the break-in the door to the resident’s property, which was the responsibility of the landlord, was secure at the time of the incident.
The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the situation had on her mental health. We are unable to draw conclusions relating to impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are matters for a court to decide. A court can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to a break-in at the resident’s property

The resident told the landlord on 16 January 2023 that an unknown perpetrator had entered the block the previous day . She said the perpetrator pushed their way in through her door when she had opened it. They had subsequently damaged her possessions and flooded the property.
The landlord asked the resident for the crime reference number allocated by the police for the incident sot it could liaise with the police and discuss an action plan. In the meantime it advised her to send correspondence from the it and police to the local authority. This was so the local authority to consider temporary housing options. The resident did so later that same day.
Following information from the police that they assessed another similar incident was unlikely to reoccur, the local authority concluded that temporary accommodation was not required. The landlord contacted the local authority that evening and asked if there was anything else which could be done to support the resident.
From the evidence we have been provided, it is clear the landlord responded quickly to the resident’s report. It appropriately liaised with external agencies to better understand the situation and tried to support her with seeking temporary accommodation. The subsequently decision of the local authority was outside of the landlord’s control. We have seen evidence from the landlord that the resident said she would stay with family on a temporary basis.
The landlord and its surveyor attended on 19 June 2023, 3 days after the report. It found that the resident’s front door was locking and unlocking correctly and damage to the door following forced entry by the police was “cosmetic”. Despite the door being in working order, it ordered a replacement. This was appropriate as a new door, whilst not necessary, may have given confidence to the resident about her security situation.
Between 19 and 20 June 2023 the landlord arranged for the resident to stay in a hotel. This was to allow it to complete electrical works in the property. Following this, the resident said she did not want to return to the property.
The following day, 21 June 2023, the landlord reiterated the conclusion of the police and local authority that such an incident was unlikely to reoccur and that she did not meet the criteria to be rehoused. It explained that it had asked the managing agent for the freeholder to treat the communal door repair as urgent. This demonstrated that the landlord had appropriately referred this to the party responsible for the communal door (the managing agent) in order to get the repair completed.
The resident advised again that she was not comfortable to return to the property. The landlord reiterated on 23 June 2023 that she did not meet the criteria for a transfer. However, it appropriately advised her of alternative re-housing options, including a mutual exchange or the private rental sector. We have seen that in order to help her return to the property, the landlord offered to help her to clear her damaged possessions as a goodwill gesture.
The landlord’s repairs policy makes it clear that residents are responsible for having their own contents insurance to cover damage to personal possessions. This policy also says that residents are responsible for the keeping the property tidy. As such, the landlord’s offer to help the resident clear her possessions was over and above what it was required to do and demonstrated that the landlord had taken a sympathetic and resolution focused approach.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 3 July 2023. She said as follows:
1. The perpetrator had been able to access her property due to the communal door not being repaired. This had not been fixed.
2. The landlord did not care and had not shown her empathy.
3. When her family member had attended to clear up, they had received an electric shock and the electrics tripped. This was despite the landlord saying the electrics had been checked.
4. There was no running water in the property but the landlord had expected them to move back.
5. The situation had affected her and her children and she had post-traumatic stress disorder as a result.
From the evidence provided to us, we have seen that the landlord replaced the resident’s front door on 17 July 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete routine repairs within 25 days. This replacement took 28 days. Although this was slightly over the timeframe stated in its policy, we acknowledge that front doors are custom fitted to individual properties. As the landlord had confirmed that the resident’s existing door was still secure and given the nature of the work, this timeframe for completion was reasonable.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 18 July 2023. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days from the date of its acknowledgement (5 July 2023) and in line with its complaints policy. It said as follows:
1. It explained it had liaised with the police and local authority about the incident and possible temporary accommodation. It reiterated the reasons given by the local authority for not agreeing to rehome the resident.
2. Its surveyor had found that the damage inside the property was to personal items. The resident had not responded to its offer to help clear the items nor to its offer of additional security for the property.
3. It had provided information on charities that may be able to help with replacing personal items. It had also explained other housing options available to the resident.
4. An electrician had reinstated the electrics and carried out a safety check on 20 June 2023. The resident had confirmed that same day that the electrics were working. It had also reconnected the water supply.
5. It had been chasing the managing agent to request an urgent repair to the communal door. In addition, it had raised concerns to the managing agent on behalf of its tenants of the block. It would monitor the performance of the managing agent and raise any concerns with the freeholder of the building.
Our analysis of the landlord’s stage 1 response found that it was a thorough and accurate reflection of the evidence of the landlord’s handling that we have been provided with. The landlord’s response set out how it had responded quickly and appropriately to the initial report. It subsequently ensured repairs it was responsible for were completed and offered additional support to the resident over and above its requirement to do. Its actions in respect of contacting the managing agent and monitoring its performance were appropriate given that the landlord was not responsible for the communal door. As such, it was limited in what it could do in respect of this repair.
The landlord’s resident support worker visited the resident on 14 September 2023. They noted as follows:
1. They had discussed the resident moving back and made a plan to tidy the rooms.
2. The resident was being supported by her GP and a mental health professional for anxiety. She said she did not need extra support.
3. The resident had reported on 6 September 2023 that the washing machine socket was not working and she was having to plug it in with an extension lead. The required repair was outstanding.
4. The bath and sink were slow to drain. It noted this would be a chargeable repair.
5. A repair was needed to a window.
A contractor attended that same day to make the window safe. This was in line with the landlord’s emergency repair response timeframe of 24 hours. Another contractor attended the following day, 15 September 2023 in respect of the electrical socket. This was also in line with its emergency response timeframe, despite the resident having use of the washing machine. They recorded that there was no access at the property. Following this no access appointment, we have seen evidence that the work to the electrical socket was completed on 17 October 2023. This timeframe was reasonable given that it had tried to attend within an emergency timeframe but the resident had not been present.
The landlord attended in respect of the slow drain issue on 31 October 2023 but there was no access. The landlord’s repairs policy says that the resident is responsible for blocked drainage. It also says it will only carry out repairs that are the resident’s responsibility when there is a significant health and safety risk, or where non-repair would cause further damage to the property. As the issue did not fall into either of these categories, the landlord’s attendance to carry this out was over and above its repair responsibility. It subsequently recorded that the resident had advised there was no requirement to re-book the appointment.
The resident escalated her complaint via us on 14 November 2023. The landlord said it aimed to respond at stage 2 by 20 November 2023. On 20 November 2023 it told the resident that it needed more time to respond and it would do so by 27 November 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 2 before this extended timeframe, on 23 November 2023. It said as follows:
1. It summarised the actions it had taken following the incident.
2. It noted that the resident had disputed the content of some face-to-face conversations with the landlord. It advised it was not able to investigate this as there was no evidence for it to base an investigation on. It had spoken to its data protection team in respect of call recordings. It explained that it only kept these for 3 months.
3. It had asked the resident to contact the local authority about temporary housing at around midday on 16 June 2023. The resident’s family member did so at around 3:30pm. The local authority responded at around 4:30pm to say that it did not have time to make enquiries. The landlord subsequently contacted the local authority again at around 6:30pm to see if anything could be done. The landlord concluded that it had made timely attempts to ensure the resident had temporary accommodation. This included making an enquiry out of office hours.
4. It had provided the resident advice on other housing options should she wish to move.
5. It apologised for the delay in the resident support worker visiting. This was due to a delay in the case being allocated. It had taken learning from this and had referred this to its senior management.
6. It apologised that some repair issues had not been identified by its surveyor but had been later identified by its support worker.
7. It explained that describing the damage to the resident’s door as ‘cosmetic’ had not meant to diminish the impact of the issue. It explained that it had described it as such as the door still worked and locked securely. It had since replaced her door.
8. As per its ‘resident responsibilities booklet’, floor coverings, other than those in the kitchen or bathroom, were the resident’s responsibility. Any damage and loss of personal items would need to be claimed on the resident’s home and contents insurance.
9. It had emailed the resident about the need for her to be present during any cleaning of the property. It acknowledged this would have been better communicated in a phone call. It had tried to do so but it had been unable to reach the resident. It had advised this as it would not be appropriate for contractors to decide what should and should not be cleared. It apologised for any unintended distress. It had taken learning in respect of clarity of its communication going forward.
10. It concluded that the incident had been a criminal act, with no evidence as to how the perpetrator gained access to the block. It reiterated that it was only responsible for repairs inside the property.
11. It noted the resident had found a new property by way of a mutual exchange. It signposted her to a third-party support service and also provided her with copes of its policies as she had requested.
12. It offered a total of £130 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £100 for the resident’s time and effort in making the complaint and for communications not always being clear.
  2. £30 delays in assigning a resident support worker.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The landlord was thorough in its investigation and looked back at all of its correspondence to identify anything it could have done better. It considered the overall effect of the failures identified on the resident. Its total offer of £130 compensation was within a range of compensation suggested by our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident. This was an appropriate level of compensation which was proportionate to the landlord’s failings.
In conclusion, our investigation has identified the landlord has provided appropriate compensation to put right the failings we have identified in this investigation. It is worthy of note our investigation has also found that the landlord’s handling of the matter was appropriate in the following ways:
1. It appropriately liaised with external agencies about the issue to understand if there was an ongoing risk.
2. It caried out repairs in the property.
3. It offered to help clean and provide additional security measures.
4. The advice given by the landlord in respect of the damaged possessions was in line with its repairs policy.
5. It appropriately set out the aspects it was responsible for and the action it was taking to pursue the managing agent.
6. It set out alternative housing options which the resident pursued and she subsequently moved which was her desired outcome.

It acknowledged areas where it could have done better.

As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to a break-in at the resident’s property. This means the landlord made an offer to the resident which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to a break-in at the resident’s property.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reoffer the total of £130 compensation directly to the resident.