London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202344015)

Decision
Case ID	202344015
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 May 2026

Background

1. The resident reported cracks in the ceiling and safety concerns from May 2022. He reported his hallway ceiling had collapsed in December 2022. He complained a year later about delays in repairing the ceiling and associated safety concerns. The resident said the landlord was aware he had mental and physical health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs to the ceiling in the property.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the ceiling in the property.
   2. Maladministration 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 repairs to the ceiling in the property

4. The landlord did not evidence its initial inspections or the cause of the ceiling collapse. It significantly delayed in repairing the ceiling. It did not address the resident’s safety concerns or consider whether any interim measures were necessary. It further delayed in completing repairs after its stage 2 response.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. It did not consider whether to log or escalate the resident’s complaint sooner, which likely delayed the resolution of the matter.

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 25 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,800 made up of: £1,700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of repairs to the ceiling in the property £100 for 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. It may deduct from the total figure any of the £1,200 it offered on 8 April 2024 if it can evidence that it has already paid this.	No later than 25 June 2026
3	Specific action The landlord must: provide the resident with the contact details of its insurance team for any physical or mental injury caused; and/or if it is too late to make an insurance claim, the landlord must consider whether to offer any additional compensation for its failure to refer to its insurance team in line with its compensation policy. It must explain the reasons for its decision, including a breakdown of any compensation to the resident in writing The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence by the due date.	No later than 25 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord responds in writing to the resident’s concerns about: the extent of the ceiling works completed other cracks in the property

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 December 2023	The resident complained about repairs to ceiling cracks and a collapsed ceiling, which he had reported between May and December 2022. He said the landlord had failed to repair cracks in the hallway ceiling in the months before it collapsed. He said it had damaged his stairs and carpet. He raised safety concerns about the ceiling and said the landlord had delayed repairing it.
21 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It agreed to investigate the past year despite its policy to only investigate the past 6 months. It said it had completed asbestos testing and identified the equipment required but had delayed in completing repairs. It apologised for the delay and said it would contact the resident once it had spoken with planners. It signposted the resident to its insurance team for any damage to personal belongings. It said he could ask it to escalate his complaint to the next stage of the process.
11 March 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord had not told him there was a second stage of its complaints process.
8 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it would complete plastering by 30 May 2024. It said its planning team were aware he wanted it to resolve the other cracks. It said it would reinstate the smoke alarm after plastering. It said it had considered the delayed repairs, rescheduled appointments, and physical and psychological injury caused by the collapsed ceiling when deciding the compensation. It offered £1,200 at £100 per month for 12 months for distress and inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us because he said the landlord had not repaired the hallway ceiling. The landlord repaired the ceiling in June 2024.   The resident wanted the landlord to pay increased compensation and to acknowledge any failures. He wanted it to confirm its position on other cracks in the property and the extent of the ceiling works completed.

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 repairs to the ceiling in the property
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that the ceiling collapse and delayed repairs impacted his mental and physical health. 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’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we investigated

7. The resident reported a large crack in the hallway ceiling and raised safety concerns on 27 May 2022. The landlord’s records confirm it attended the next day in line with its 24-hour emergency repairs timescale. However, the outcome of this visit is unclear. It completed asbestos testing and a repairs and decoration survey in the hallway and living room in July 2022. The outcome of these inspections and whether any further works were required is unclear as we do not have evidence of the inspection notes.
8. On 25 November 2022 the resident reported the hallway ceiling was unstable, and a hole was getting bigger. The landlord raised and completed a same-day job to make-safe and survey the area. It identified follow on works, though the nature of the works required is unclear from its records.
9. When the hallway ceiling collapsed on 3 December 2022, the landlord attended within its 24-hour emergency repairs timescale. It is unclear from its records whether it took any action during this visit. The landlord’s records do not confirm the cause of the ceiling collapse, which was a record keeping failure. Its failure to evidence the outcome of its visits or share its findings with the resident has impacted our assessment of its actions.
10. The landlord failed to repair the ceiling in line with its timescale of 25 working days for routine repairs. It said it completed asbestos checks in December 2022. In January 2023, the resident chased the ceiling repairs, and the landlord arranged an appointment for March 2023. It attended but lacked the correct equipment. It attended without the correct equipment again in July 2023. The resident chased again in August 2023. The landlord did not explain the significant delays to the resident or provide timely updates. It failed to consider whether interim measures were required during this period.
11. The landlord attended on 28 December 2023 and identified scaffolding was needed for the ceiling repairs. It said the ceiling required removal and replacement and confirmed the situation was dangerous and urgent. On 5 January 2024 the resident raised ongoing concerns, including falling debris, worsening cracks in the living room, and risks to his safety. He reported fears about remaining in the property. He also reported mental health issues for which he took medication. He requested a full property survey and clarity on the required works.
12. The landlord did not complete urgent repairs or consider interim safety measures. At a pre-inspection on 17 January 2024, it identified a roof leak. The resident questioned why it had not identified this earlier but did not receive a response. There is not enough evidence to assess whether the leak caused the ceiling to collapse. The landlord repaired the leak on 30 January 2024.
13. The landlord failed to repair the ceiling on 7 February 2024, as agreed. It said contractors were unwell and rearranged. It visited in February and March 2024 but was unable to complete the repairs. There was ongoing uncertainty about the required equipment. Despite recognising the urgency and the resident’s health issues, it did not consider whether any interim safety measures or temporary accommodation were required while the repairs were outstanding.
14. The landlord attended without the correct equipment again and further delayed in completing repairs following its stage 2 response. It repaired the hole in the hallway ceiling around 6 June 2024 and reinstated the smoke alarm on 13 June 2024. It completed decorating works around 31 July 2024.
15. The resident said he spent time cleaning debris and dust which he said caused respiratory issues. He said he had to replace the carpets and dispose of damaged belongings. He reported constant worry about another collapse which he said impacted his mental health, sleep and daily life. He said he spent time chasing the landlord and felt it showed little concern for his safety. He reports a continued impact on him, which he said was increased due to his health conditions.
16. It is unclear how much, if any of the compensation the landlord offered at stage 2 was for physical and psychological damage. It should have signposted the resident to its insurance team for any physical or mental injury, in line with its compensation policy.
17. It was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for it to signpost the resident to its insurance team for any damage to belongings at stage 1.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not clearly explain why it limited compensation to 12 months. It acknowledged some failures and attempted to put them right. However, it did not fully address the detriment to the resident. Its offer was not quite proportionate to the failings identified, their impact, and the length of the delays. We have therefore found maladministration and have made orders for the landlord to put things right in line with our compensation guidance for failures which had a significant impact on the resident.
19. This includes orders for the landlord to apologise, and to pay £1,700 compensation, inclusive of the £1,200 compensation it offered at stage 2. We have also ordered it to signpost the resident to its insurance team for any injury or to consider whether to offer any additional compensation. The resident said he has concerns about other cracks in the property and the extent of the ceiling works completed. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to contact him to discuss his concerns.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

20. Our 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code) set out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy timescales were in line with the 2022 Code. Its complaints policy defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about its service standards, actions or lack of action. The resident told the landlord he was dissatisfied with its delays in repairing the hallway ceiling on 1 August 2023. It would therefore have been in line with its policy to have logged a complaint.
21. The landlord’s complaints policy required acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within its 5-working-day timescale. However, it issued its stage 1 response 12 working days after his complaint. This was within its total timescale of 15 working days to respond.
22. The Code stated that if all or part of the complaint was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, the landlord must progress it to stage 2. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 27 December 2023 and 5 January 2024. Though the resident did not explicitly ask the landlord to escalate his complaint, it would have been in line with the Code for the landlord to consider doing so.
23. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within its 19 working days of the resident’s later escalation request. This was in line with its 20-working day policy timescale.
24. The landlord’s delay in logging a complaint and its failure to consider escalating the complaint sooner, showed a potentially obstructive complaints process. This may have delayed the resolution of the matter and the resident’s ability to refer the complaint to us.
25. The landlord did not acknowledge any complaint handling failures in its complaint responses. We have therefore made an apology order and a £100 compensation order for it to put things right. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact.

Learning

26. Though it agreed to share feedback internally, the landlord did not identify any learning from the resident’s complaint in its responses. Doing so would have been in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s record keeping of some of its inspections and hazard assessments was poor. This impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

28. Our spotlight report on repairs highlights that it is good practice for landlords to inform residents of any delays and explain why these are necessary. The landlord did not always do this.