London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202340712)

Decision
Case ID	202340712
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	16 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a second floor flat and made multiple reports that the communal lift had broken down. The resident’s tenancy agreement transferred to a different landlord on 29 January 2024. However, the landlord failed to permanently repair the lift before the transfer and offered the resident compensation that she felt was insufficient. This led the resident to make their complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of a faulty lift and the amount of compensation offered.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty lift.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty lift

4. There were failings in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of a faulty lift as it did not consider her vulnerability or proactively provide repair updates. It also failed to complete a permanent or long-lasting repair.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord took 76 working days to respond at stage 1 of its internal complaint process, 55 working days to acknowledge the escalation, and 55 working days to respond at stage 2. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy in respect of timescales or communicate with the resident about an extension period.

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 13 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £330 made up as follows: £180 (this includes £80 already offered to the resident by the landlord) to recognise the inconvenience caused by its delays in effectively repairing the lift and its failures to proactively communicate with the resident. £150 (this includes £60 already offered to the resident by the landlord) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by 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 13 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 January 2024	The resident complained as she said the landlord was ignoring the emails she sent to them about the repairs needed to the lift.
23 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and confirmed that it had been assigned to a neighbourhood lead.
22 February 2024	The resident sent an email to the landlord chasing a response to her complaint.
28 February 2024	The landlord told the resident that it cannot progress the complaint as her tenancy had transferred to a different landlord.   The resident replied to the landlord and said it still needed to response to her complaint, as she made it before the tenancy transferred. She asked the landlord to issue a “deadlock letter” if they would not respond to her complaint.   The landlord responded to the resident and said it was looking into her complaint and would escalate it to the correct team to provide her with an update.
11 and 13 March 2024	The resident sent emails to the landlord chasing a response to her complaint, but the landlord did not respond.
4 April 2024	The resident bought her complaint to us as she had not received a complaint response.
3 May 2024	Following intervention by this office, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s stage 1 complaint again.
16 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: it arranged for its contractor to attend the property on 17 January 2024 as the lift was out of service the contractor said the lift had an intermittent fault, and a specialist technician needed to attend for further investigations the technician attended on 22 April 2024 and advised the landlord that new parts were required to return the lift to working service it had not completely resolved the lift issues before the resident transferred to a different landlord on 29 January 2024 It offered £150 in compensation made up of: £10 for the right to repair £80 for distress and inconvenience £30 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved £30 for poor complaint handling
3 June 2024	The resident emailed the landlord and complained about its complaint response. She said because the lift had stopped working, she had to carry her pushchair up the narrow stairs on her own and damaged it because of the obstructions on the stairs. She said the compensation did not fairly cover this damage and the lasting impact caused to her by the continuous issues with the lift.
7 June 2024	The landlord replied to the resident and said that: a manager had reviewed the complaint and confirmed they had offered her the most compensation they could at stage 1 in her circumstances they were sorry about the damage to the pushchair and if she wanted to pursue a damage claim she should submit it with the landlords insurance team and explained the process she had to follow to do this if she did not agree with its decision, she could escalate the complaint to stage 2
10 June 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2.
20 July 2024	The landlord emailed the resident asking for a quote for the pushchair repair.
27 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. However, it defined the complaint incorrectly.
2 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: the resident escalated her complaint as the landlord had not taken responsibility for the damage caused to her pushchair because the lift was not working the resident was seeking: –          compensation to allow her to repair the pushchair as quoted by the manufacturer –          additional compensation to the £150 offered at stage 1 it felt the £150 was reasonable for the inconvenience she faced and they would reissue a new cheque for that amount it received the quote the resident provided for the repair to the pushchair but advised her to contact the landlord’s insurance team to pursue a claim for the damage
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident raised her complaint with us and said the landlord had failed to permanently fix the lift and the amount of compensation it offered her was insufficient.

 

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 response to the resident’s reports of a faulty lift
Finding	Service failure

6. The landlord’s repair policy states that it is responsible for maintaining lifts across all its homes.
7. The resident’s tenancy started in February 2023. The repair logs show that prior to her moving in, there were already lift repair issues. She first reported that the lift needed repairing in October 2023. The repair logs show that between February and October 2023, approximately 20 lift repairs were reported to the landlord. The landlord responded promptly on most occasions by sending a contractor to repair the lift faults as they were reported, often within 24 hours. This was appropriate and in line with its emergency repairs policy.
8. When the resident reported the lift had broken down to the landlord in October 2023, she explained the impact it was having on her. Specifically, she said she was heavily pregnant and had to walk up 2 flights of stairs with bags, and later with a new baby in a pushchair. She often experienced problems leaving her home. She asked the landlord to find a lasting fix to the repair issues. Although the landlord acknowledged the initial 2 repairs the resident reported, it made no reference to her pregnancy, and we have not seen it had any specific regard to her situation. It did not fully recognise the impact of failing to provide clear and transparent information each time the lift was faulty.
9. We found no evidence that the landlord proactively updated the resident at any stage. It did not provide reassurance about preventing the issue reoccurring or why doing so was important. The lack of information and reassurance caused uncertainty for the resident about whether she would be able to attend her baby’s medical appointments. It is therefore understandable that she would have been concerned about how long the repair would last and how long each repair would take.
10. The landlord also caused the resident inconvenience as she told them that she was “housebound unable to leave” because the lift had broken down. The landlord failed to take an inquisitive approach to establish what the resident meant by being housebound or how this could impact her, such as in the event of an emergency.
11. When the resident’s tenancy agreement transferred to a different landlord on 29 January 2024, so did the responsibility for repairing the lift. Before the transfer, the landlord did not find a permanent fix and the new landlord inherited the issue. Over the resident’s entire tenancy with the landlord, there were repeated faults over 11 months. This likely caused the resident frustration and inconvenience, especially as this was the only lift in the building.
12. After the landlord issued its stage 1 response, the resident said it had not considered the damage she caused to her pushchair carrying it up the stairs when the lift had broken down. She asked the landlord to cover the repair costs. The landlord replied by telling the resident she needed to make a damage claim with its insurance team. However, it later asked her to provide a quote for the repair which she did, only to reiterate in its stage 2 response that she needed to make a damage claim. The landlords request for a quote was unnecessary and inconvenienced the resident. It likely would have also caused the resident confusion and it failed to manage her expectations.
13. Where there are acknowledged failings as in this case, our role is to determine if the landlord appropriately resolved the issue in line with our resolution principles, which are be fair, put things right and learn from outcome. It was significantly inconvenient for the resident living on the second floor pre and post pregnancy, to be without a lift on multiple occasions between October 2023 and January 2024. She likely would have felt uncertainty about the effectiveness of each repair. And when the lift might break down again and how that would affect her leaving and returning home.
14. Although the landlord appropriately sent its contractors to repair the lift each time, it failed to communicate or reassure her about its investigations or plans for a permanent repair or lift replacement. This was not reasonable. Therefore, we do not consider the compensation amount the landlord already offered to the resident proportionate to fully address the impact of its failings.
15. The landlord’s failures continued over months, and they had a significant physical and emotional impact on the resident. But for the acknowledged failings and offer of compensation, we would have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty lift. Considering its failings, we have found service failure and order the landlord to pay an award of £180 compensation for the likely distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused, in line with our remedies guidance. This includes the £80 it already offered to the resident for its poor response to her reports of a faulty lift.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

16. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
17. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
18. The landlord originally acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on time but later refused to investigate it without valid reason. It then led the resident to believe that it would consider the complaint, but we have not seen evidence that it took action to investigate it.
19. The landlord did not request an extension period or keep in regular contact with the resident between January and March 2023. Its lack of communication caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble chasing information whilst also having to care for a newborn baby.
20. It was only after our involvement that the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint again, but this was 76 working days after the resident originally raised her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 84 working days after the complaint was made. This was not appropriate and did not comply with the Code or the landlord’s complaint policy.
21. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 50 working days late. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 35 working days late. These delays were unreasonable and were not in keeping with the Code.
22. But for the acknowledged failings and offer of compensation we would have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Considering its failings, we have found service failure and have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £150. This includes the £60 already offered to the resident by the landlord for its poor complaint handling. This amount reflects the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident in pursuing their complaint and is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

23. The landlord recognised that its contractor had completed several repairs to the lift over a relatively short period. However, it was not proactive in finding a permanent or long-lasting fix. It should consider its processes to ensure that when several work orders about the same repair are issued, it investigates further to address the underlying cause. And attempts to find a permanent or long-lasting fix.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s record keeping overall was good.

Communication

25. The resident would have benefited from more proactive communication from the landlord about the planned lift repairs and its complaint handling.
26. If the landlord requires an extension to respond to a complaint, it should contact the resident to request this within the required timescale.