London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202348140)

Decision
Case ID	202348140
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	27 January 2026

Background

1. The landlord began the section 20 process because it intended to enter a long-term contract with a new commercial contractor to maintain the communal heating system. It issued the first notice in June 2022 and the second notice in March 2024. The resident said he did not receive the first notice, which meant he had no opportunity to take part in the process. He also raised concerns about errors in the second notice and the length of time between the 2 notices. He felt the landlord’s communication was inadequate and said this caused him concern about the transparency of the process.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the section 20 process.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the section 20 process.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. In summary we found that:
   1. The landlord did not communicate clearly or promptly during the section 20 process, which led the resident to spend unnecessary time and effort chasing updates and seeking clarification. The landlord did not show that it kept the resident informed about delays or ensured that his enquiries were directed to the relevant teams.
   2. The landlord did not provide us with records of the resident’s stage 1 or stage 2 complaint requests, so we could not confirm how it identified the issues, or whether it handled the complaint within the correct timescales. The absence of a clear audit trail also meant we could not verify when the resident raised his complaint or when he escalated it. Although the landlord’s complaint responses were detailed, the poor record keeping limited transparency and reduced our ability to assess whether the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in full.

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 24 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £225 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the section 20 process. £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
	The landlord has not provided us with a record of the resident’s stage 1 complaint request.
23 July 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response.  In summary it said: It had explained that its section 20 team was not the correct point of contact for queries about historical or existing contracts. It stated that the resident should direct those queries to the relevant business areas. It explained why it had not treated the resident’s initial concerns as a complaint and set out its policy. It was satisfied that it had explained this to the resident in accordance with its policy but apologised if this had come across as patronising as this was not its intention.
	The landlord did not provide us with a record of the resident’s stage 2 complaint request.
30 July 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said: The section 20 team was not responsible for the procurement process. When it responded to the resident, it had not received information about why the initial procurement did not proceed. It restarted the original procurement because the requirements would not have delivered the expected quality and would have resulted in appointing agents who were not suitably qualified. It therefore decided to delay the procurement and extend the existing contract for 1 year. It apologised for errors in the notice. It reviewed these and said it was confident they did not affect the validity of the notice or the consultation. It acknowledged that some properties did not receive the notice, possibly due to it pulling incorrect data from its system. Advisers told it that this would not affect its compliance with legislation because leaseholders could not nominate contractors for this contract and would still have an opportunity to raise observations at stage 2. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with the responses from its staff and the section 20 team. It had reviewed the correspondence and said it was satisfied there was no intention to be disrespectful, but it apologised if the resident interpreted its communication in that way. It said it was satisfied that the answers provided at stage 1 were accurate and appropriate. It concluded that it had met its obligations and had not failed to provide its service.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us because he considered the landlord’s conclusion that its failings had caused no impact on him was inadequate. He said the landlord had failed to consider its poor communication and lack of clarity which had caused confusion and did not support a positive landlord resident relationship.

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 concerns about the s20 process.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

6. We have not investigated the validity of the landlord’s consultation process. If a landlord does not follow the statutory consultation requirements, it may be limited in the amount of service charges it can recover. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) would be the appropriate body to determine whether the landlord complied with the consultation rules and what charges are payable. The resident may find it helpful to obtain independent advice concerning this. What we have investigated
7. The landlord explained in its complaint response why it initially halted the section 20 process. Its explanation about the procurement issues was clear. However, it did not show that it considered whether it had communicated this information to the resident. The delay between the first notice and the second notice was almost 2 years. There are no records confirming that the landlord informed the resident about the procurement delays, which contributed to his confusion. The landlord said that another team handled procurement matters and this response was inadequate. The landlord had a responsibility to keep the resident updated regardless.
8. The landlord apologised for the errors in the first and second notice and acknowledged that it had not sent the notice to all residents due to a system issue. Its response focused on confirming that the notice remained valid, rather than addressing the importance of keeping residents informed or demonstrating that it had followed the consultation process. This did not support a good landlord resident relationship and was a further failing.
9. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its communication being disrespectful was reasonable in the circumstances. It offered an apology. However, it failed to consider its timing of its communication with the resident and whether this had been reasonable.
10. The records show that the resident raised enquiries in September 2023, but the landlord did not respond until December 2023. This was an unreasonable delay. It also directed the resident to other teams when it was unable to answer specific questions concerning non section 20 issues, which was reasonable.
11. The records show that the resident raised further enquiries after receiving the second section 20 notice letter in March 2024. The landlord did not respond until May 2024. In its response, the landlord apologised and explained that it needed to collate information from the relevant teams, which was reasonable. However, during the period before its response, the resident spent considerable time and effort chasing updates and seeking clarification. The records do not show that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s emails or provided time frames for its responses which was a failing.
12. The above shortcomings in the landlord’s communication did not affect the overall outcome of the section 20 process but they caused the resident avoidable time and trouble, loss of confidence and delays in receiving information. In accordance with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

13. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
14. The landlord has not provided us with records of the resident’s stage 1 or stage 2 complaint, despite several requests from us. This is a record keeping shortcoming. As a result, we are unable to assess whether the landlord met the required timescales for acknowledging or responding to the resident’s escalation requests. We have seen several expressions of dissatisfaction from the resident in May and June 2024, but the evidence does not show when the landlord logged the complaint, or how it identified the point at which the resident formally raised his complaint.
15. The landlord said that it treated the resident’s correspondence in April 2024 as a service request in line with its policy, and that if its response fell outside expected timescales or the resident remained dissatisfied, the resident could escalate the matter. It said that the resident escalated the complaint on this basis from 30 May 2024 onwards. However, the landlord has not provided a clear audit trail to support this account, and its poor record keeping means we cannot confirm the sequence of events.
16. The landlord issued its stage 2 response shortly after the stage 1 outcome, so it provided this within the appropriate timescales. However, without the resident’s stage 2 request, we cannot confirm when the landlord received the escalation or how the landlord assessed it.
17. The landlord’s complaint responses appear detailed, but we are unable to assess whether they addressed all the resident’s concerns because the landlord did not provide records of the stage 1 or stage 2 complaint requests. This gap in the records limits our ability to determine whether the landlord identified and responded to all the issues raised. The landlord did, however, appropriately signpost the resident to external agencies so he could obtain legal advice about the validity of the section 20 process.
18. The shortcomings in the landlord’s complaint handling meant the resident had to spend additional time and effort chasing updates and seeking clarity about the progress of his complaint. He also had to bring the matter to us for further review. This created avoidable inconvenience for the resident and increased the overall impact of the issues he was trying to resolve.
19. In light of these failings, we consider it appropriate to order the landlord to pay the resident £125. This reflects our remedies guidance which states that compensation may be appropriate where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact.

Learning

20. The landlord should review its approach to managing section 20 enquiries to ensure residents receive timely updates, clear explanations about delays, and consistent handling even when several teams are involved. Strengthening internal coordination and ensuring staff understand their responsibility to keep residents informed would help prevent similar issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord should strengthen its complaint handling processes by ensuring it retains records of residents’ complaints and escalation requests and keeps a clear audit trail showing how it has identified the issues it would address at each stage. Accurate records would enable it to demonstrate that it has responded fully to all concerns raised and reduce the risk of gaps that limit transparency in future investigations.

Communication

22. The landlord should ensure that residents receive prompt, clear responses and it tells them when it needs to gather information from other teams. This would help reduce avoidable chasing and support a more constructive landlord resident relationship.