London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202334887)

Decision
Case ID	202334887
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 November 2025

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about damage caused to his decoration and microwave following a leak from the bathroom into the kitchen. He disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to redecorate or compensate him for his microwave. The resident is on dialysis and has explained he cannot redecorate himself.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:

A leak and resultant damage.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a leak and resultant damage.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, the Ombudsman found that the landlord:
1. Did not show that it considered the resident’s health circumstances when deciding whether to redecorate following the leak. Its policy allows discretion in exceptional circumstances, and records showed the resident was on dialysis and had mobility issues. The landlord did not explore these factors or offer alternative solutions. This was a missed opportunity to apply its policy commitment to support residents who cannot meet their responsibilities.
2. Handled the complaint within its policy timescales, issuing Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses promptly. It also contacted the resident at Stage 1 to clarify concerns, which was appropriate. While it could have improved its complaints handling by sending acknowledgements at each stage, this did not amount to maladministration.

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 16 December 2025
2	Redecoration discretion review The landlord must consider whether the resident’s health circumstances meet the threshold for exceptional redecoration support under its repairs policy. The landlord must ensure: It writes to the resident and explains its position. If the review concludes that the resident qualifies for support, the landlord must agree a plan for redecoration. It provides evidence of this to the Ombudsman.	No later than 16 December 2025
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its failure to consider his health circumstances and apply discretion under its repairs policy. This payment is in addition to any remedy offered for shower issues at Stage 1.	No later than 16 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 September 2023	The resident reported a leak from his bathroom through the kitchen ceiling. The landlord attended the same day and isolated the leak. The resident later told the landlord that the leak had damaged his decoration and microwave. The landlord raised a complaint after the resident said he was unhappy with its decision not to compensate him and its advice to claim through contents insurance, which he did not have. He asked for a call to discuss compensation.
27 September 2023	The landlord called the resident to discuss his complaint. The landlord said it was not responsible for the reported damage. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s position. The resident also raised concerns about repeat issues with his shower. In response, the landlord offered £120 compensation. The resident declined the offer and said he would consider his options.
27 September 2023	In its Stage 1 response: The landlord said it attended the leak as an emergency within its 8-hour time frame. It said a plumber isolated the leak, and an electrician later checked the light fitting. It said the electrician confirmed the light was safe to use on 15 September 2023. It said it would not be able to award any compensation for the damaged microwave or attend to repair the damaged décor. It said this was in line with its repairs policy. The landlord recommended the resident arrange contents insurance to protect his belongings against future damage. It noted a phone call on the same day about the shower being out of service on several occasions. It acknowledged the inconvenience this had caused and offered £120 compensation.
9 October 2023	The resident escalated his complaint by telephone. He explained he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to compensate him for the damage caused by the leak. He said he felt the landlord should have redecorated and compensated him. The resident did not escalate his complaint about the shower.
6 November 2023	In its Stage 2 response: The landlord said it was satisfied with its investigation at Stage 1. It explained it attended within its repair policy timeframe and was able to stop the leak. It said it arranged for an electrician to check the lights were safe on 15 September 2023. The electrician confirmed there was no water in the lights. It told the resident it would not be decorating or compensating him for the damage caused. It said this decision was in line with its policies and procedures and was why it encouraged residents to have contents insurance.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision. He reported watermarks on the ceiling and explained that he could not redecorate himself because he is on dialysis. He said that the leak had damaged his microwave and had trickled into the electric sockets. To resolve his complaint, he asked that the landlord redecorate his kitchen and compensate him for the microwave. The resident also requested further compensation for delays in repairing his shower.

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 leak and resultant damage.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord attended and isolated the leak within 8 hours. This was in line with its emergency repair timeframe. An electrician then attended on 15 September 2023, who confirmed the resident could use the lights safely.
The landlord declined to compensate the resident for damage to his microwave, telling him to claim through home contents insurance. The resident said he did not have insurance. The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s compensation policy both encourage residents to arrange contents insurance to cover accidental or water damage. The landlord’s response was consistent with these policies.
The landlord also told the resident it would not redecorate. The repairs policy says the landlord will only redecorate after a repair where it has an obligation or in exceptional circumstances at its discretion. It also recognises some residents may be unable to meet their responsibilities and commits to finding practical solutions in such cases.
The resident told the landlord he could not redecorate due to having dialysis treatment. The landlord’s records confirm he has been on dialysis since at least December 2022. The landlord says it became aware of his health circumstances on 11 July 2023, noting mobility issues. Following the resident’s complaint, it did not explore the resident’s circumstances further or assess whether they met the threshold for exceptional circumstances. Instead, it declined to redecorate without showing it considered the resident’s ability to do the work.
Although the repairs policy commits to working with residents who cannot meet their responsibilities, we have not seen evidence the landlord engaged with the resident to understand his limitations or explore alternatives.
The landlord has not shown it applied discretion in line with its policy or considered the impact of the resident’s circumstances. This was a service failure. The landlord missed an opportunity to work with the resident to understand his needs. We have therefore ordered the landlord to review whether the resident’s circumstances meet the threshold and to explain its decision to him.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord logged the complaint and issued its Stage 1 response within 10 working days, in line with its policy. It also called the resident on 27 September 2023 before issuing the response to clarify his concerns and discuss compensation. This was appropriate and consistent with good practice.
The landlord issued its Stage 2 response within 20 working days, meeting its policy timescales. However, the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time required landlords to confirm their understanding of the outstanding issues and the outcomes sought when a complaint is escalated. The landlord did not contact the resident after his escalation request on 9 October 2023 to confirm these details. It would have been better to send an acknowledgment and clarify the complaint.
Overall, the landlord met its policy timescales and engaged with the resident at Stage 1, but missed an opportunity to fully comply with the Code’s requirements at escalation. Overall, there was no maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

The landlord did not consider whether the resident’s health circumstances required the use of discretion to redecorate. The landlord should provide training to staff on identifying and responding to residents’ vulnerabilities. This should include how to check records and apply discretion under its repair policy consistently.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

In response to this service’s evidence request, the landlord said it noted the resident was on dialysis on 11 July 2023. However, the landlord provided records showing the resident was on dialysis dating back to 20 December 2022. The landlord should ensure that the resident’s circumstances are appropriately recorded.

Communication

The landlord called the resident as part of its Stage 1 investigation. However, it could have improved communication by sending complaint acknowledgments to confirm its understanding of the issues and desired outcomes at each stage.