London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202406939)

Decision
Case ID	202406939
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 December 2025

Background

1. From September 2023, the resident raised concerns about poor quality bathroom renovations following multiple leaks in previous years. In March 2024, he complained that a boiler installed in December 2023 was subject to a fire risk recall. He also complained that previous promises to complete bathroom renovations were not met. The resident has mental health conditions known to the landlord. An advocate supported the resident during the repairs and complaints process. They are referred to collectively as “the resident” in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Requests for bathroom renovations.
   2. Concerns about a boiler.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. The resident’s complaint about the resident’s requests for bathroom renovations is outside our jurisdiction.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a boiler.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Bathroom renovations

5. The complaint about bathroom renovations has not completed the landlord’s complaints process. Because of that it falls outside our jurisdiction to investigate at this time. However, we have addressed the landlord’s handling of the complaint below.

Boiler

6. Despite being notified by the resident in March 2024 about a boiler recall notice, the landlord did not respond directly to him for over 6 months. Although the resident had access to heating and hot water during this period, the absence of timely communication and reassurance caused him worry which could potentially have been avoided.

Complaints handling

7. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s March 2024 complaint and did not acknowledge the delay or offer an appropriate remedy within its later complaints process.

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	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up of: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in taking steps following boiler recall concerns.   £150 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.	No later than 27 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that the boiler installed in December 2023 was subject to a government recall on 22 February 2024 due to a fire risk. He said neither the contractor nor the landlord informed him of the recall and wanted immediate action.
13 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It confirmed in February 2024, its heating contractor was informed by the manufacturer of a recall and that the thermostat component needed to be replaced. The contractor assured the landlord the boiler was safe and the fault posed no risk. The landlord apologised for not informing the resident and explained residents should have been contacted about the recall and planned works. Planned works were arranged and its contractor would carry them out once the required parts arrived. An appointment was scheduled for 1 October 2024.
1 October 2024	The resident escalated the complaint, stating the landlord ignored his concerns and failed to recognise the impact on him. He disputed the landlord’s claim that the boiler posed no fire risk, saying this contradicted the recall notice. He explained that since February 2024, the only update received was the stage 1 complaint response, which he felt showed poor communication and a lack of urgency. He said the contractor missed the 1 October appointment.
25 October 2024	The landlord issued its final stage 2 response, confirming boiler recall works were completed on 17 October 2024. It apologised for the delay, explaining parts had to be ordered by its heating contractor. While acknowledging the inconvenience, it said this was beyond its control, and as the resident had full use of heating and hot water throughout, the landlord said there was no service failure.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In his referral to us, the resident said there were multiple historical complaints that remained outstanding. He said the landlord stopped corresponding, ignored formal complaints, and failed to address his concerns about the boiler. He wanted the landlord to apologise for delays and pay compensation.

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	Requests for bathroom renovations
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

8. The resident raised concerns about remedial bathroom works that were said to be part of previous complaint resolutions. He was unhappy with the workmanship and asked the landlord to inspect and redo the works. The evidence shows the resident raised these points in the March 2024 complaint. When the resident did not receive a response he sought assistance from us, and we asked the landlord in September 2024 to respond. However, at the time we understood the complaint to focus on the boiler issue, which is what we told the landlord. Accordingly, that was what the landlord addressed in its stage 1 response.
9. When the resident escalated his boiler complaint he again included the bathroom issues. However, as these had not been part of the original complaint we passed to the landlord it concluded they were new, and said it would address them separately. Its decision to do so was in line with our Complaint Handling Code, and understandable in the circumstances. However, it means that we may not investigate the substantive bathroom works in this investigation, because the landlord first needs to provide its own explanations for its actions.
10. The landlord should ensure it has properly considered the resident’s complaints about these issues, and he has the option to return to us once he has received its final complaint response.

Complaint	Concerns about a boiler
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

11. The resident told the landlord that its handling of the situation impacted his health and wellbeing. 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 however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for any distress and inconvenience.

What we have considered

12. The resident complained about the boiler recall, believing it was unsafe and wanted immediate replacement. He was unhappy the boiler remained unmodified for a long period and said the landlord missed an opportunity to reassure him it was safe. He also reported that a scheduled appointment on 1 October 2024 to complete recall works was missed.
13. In its formal responses, the landlord explained its heating contractor confirmed the boiler was not faulty and the thermostat posed no risk, apologising for not advising the resident sooner. The landlord confirmed that recall works were completed on 17 October 2024 along with the annual service, and apologised for the delay, citing parts availability as the reason.
14. The resident’s boiler was installed on 15 December 2023 and a manufacturer recall was issued on 22 February 2024. Although the recall mentioned a potential fire risk, the notice said boilers could still be used if repressurised appropriately and said the manufacturer would arrange a free safety upgrade. There is no evidence that the issue posed an urgent safety risk.
15. The evidence shows the manufacturer arranged a service with the resident on 12 March 2024 and attempted a visit on 30 May 2024 but could not gain access. The manufacturer then called the resident multiple times in August 2024 but he did not answer nor respond to a voicemail. As the manufacturer had contacted the resident in line with the notice, the landlord was not required to act at that initial stage.
16. However, once the resident explained his concerns in his March 2024 complaint the landlord should then have become aware and taken steps to provide clarity and guidance by way of a timely response to his complaint. Nothing in the evidence explains what happened to the complaint or why the landlord did not respond to it despite the resident chasing it in April 2024.
17. The resident later reported the heating contractor missed a scheduled appointment on 1 October 2024. The landlord apologised for this and provided a date for the recall work, which was reasonable.
18. Although heating and hot water were available and the recall allowed continued boiler use, the resident’s worry was understandable. The landlord should have responded promptly to his concerns. It did not do so and it then failed to offer a suitable remedy for its poor communication in its formal complaint responses.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

19. The resident complained about the boiler recall and bathroom renovations in March 2024. Although the landlord acknowledged his email the same day, it did not issue a formal response. On 10 April 2024, the resident asked to escalate all complaints, but again received no formal response. This delay was unreasonable and left the resident feeling ignored. The landlord did not acknowledge its poor handling or offer any remedies for it when it finally sent its complaint response in September 2024.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. In this case, the landlord’s records lacked some detail about the boiler recall works. Its repair logs did not show the October 2024 boiler recall works and annual service. The landlord should consider the recommendations in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for accurate record keeping.

Communication

21. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It failed to respond to him on more than one occasion. Effective communication could have reassured the resident that the boiler situation was being taken seriously.
22. The landlord should consider reviewing our Spotlight report on complaint handling. The report explains that delays, poor communication, and lack of ownership can escalate issues unnecessarily, and recommends clear accountability, timely responses, and proactive engagement to resolve problems early and maintain trust.