Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202409790)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409790

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

20 October 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding repairs and maintenance matters, and her associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident’s lease began in 2011. The property is a flat in a converted building. Her communications and complaint to the landlord were made on her behalf by her partner. For the purposes of this report both the resident and her partner are referred to as the ‘the resident’.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord, in December 2023, about a range of repairs and maintenance matters. This included car park drainage, overgrown trees, the guttering around the main building and the sheds, and the lack of updates regarding windows and doors upgrades. She chased a response to her complaint over the following 7 months.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, on 19 July 2024, apologised for its delay and offered £160 compensation for this. It provided updates to each of the resident’s points, apologised for its communication delays, and offered £100 compensation for this.
  4. The resident’s complaint escalation, on 8 August 2024, updated the points from her original complaint, asked for an onsite meeting, and expressed her continued frustration.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 23 August 2024, upheld the resident’s complaint and re-offered its £260 compensation. It provided an update of its maintenance intentions and said that further information would be provided during a Section 20 consultation with all of the leaseholders. It confirmed that the shed guttering would be handled separately and committed to complete repairs. It said that tree work would begin soon. It said that it would contact her to arrange an onsite meeting.
  6. The landlord sent its Section 20 letter to the resident and other leaseholders in September 2024. The resident chased the landlord’s promised visit and shed guttering inspection later the same month. The landlord began works to the trees from the following month.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint, as she said that disputes had arisen during the Section 20 process, and subsequent works, and the landlord’s communications had continued to be poor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. No evidence has been seen that the resident has made a formal complaint about Section 20 matters, or her works concerns that were raised after the conclusion of her complaint in August 2024. Because of that, these matters have not been considered in this investigation.
  2. Section 20 disputes are within the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal. If the resident has concerns about the landlord’s handling of matters that have occurred since her complaint concluded, she could consider making a new complaint to the landlord. She could then return to the Ombudsman and ask us to consider her new complaint about any matters that are within our jurisdiction.

Repairs, maintenance, and complaint handling

  1. The resident’s complaint, in December 2023, highlighted the car park’s poor drainage, guttering issues that she believed were contributing to this, and concerns regarding the size of nearby trees. She referred to the landlord’s previous discussions with leaseholders about potential window and door upgrades, and the lack of information since.
  2. The resident believed, at this time, that she was complaining on behalf of multiple leaseholders and so also raised issues specific to other properties.
  3. The evidence shows the resident’s frustration at the need to repeatedly chase her complaint over the following months. It also shows the landlord’s internal discussions about relevant works and associated Section 20 matters. The landlord did contact the resident during this period but, as it later accepted, its communications and complaint handling were poor.
  4. The landlord stage 1 response, in July 2024, apologised for its 7 month delay, which it acknowledged was “unacceptable”. Its £160 compensation for this was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaint handling delays over several months. It provided clear, albeit belated, explanations of why it was not handling the matter as a group complaint and the complaint process advice it had given to other leaseholders. Its subsequent stage 2 response was timely and explained the additional resource it had committed to formal complaints to avoid future delays.
  5. The landlord’s complaint responses, in July and August 2024, gave maintenance updates for the points raised by the resident. It committed to provide further information during the Section 20 process, which it did from September 2024. It provided details of its recent tree survey, and factors that may delay cutting them, but committed to “book the works in soon”. The tree work began in October 2024. It apologised for its poor communications on these matters. Its £100 compensation for this was again in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a level of inconvenience and frustration has been caused to a resident, but with no permanent impact.
  6. However, the landlord also committed to arrange an onsite meeting with the resident and to repair the shed guttering. The evidence shows that she chased both actions in the weeks after her complaint concluded but does not show that they were completed.
  7. The landlord told us, in October 2025, that it did not know what had happened about its onsite meeting with the resident. It said that it had completed carpark drainage works but had failed to progress the shed guttering repairs, which it said that it would now raise. The repairs were to an external building and the evidence does not show any clear impact of its very lengthy delay in addressing them. Nonetheless, its failure to follow through with its commitments would have caused further frustration to the resident.
  8. Overall, the landlord accepted and apologised for its delayed and poor communications and complaint handling. It provided comprehensive maintenance updates, and offered compensation and other remedies that would have represented reasonable redress. However, it then failed to follow through with 2 of those remedies, despite the resident chasing them. Her complaint was therefore unresolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in regard to the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord must contact the resident to confirm the shed guttering repairs it has raised, the date it will complete this, and whether an onsite meeting is still required.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation in respect of its failure to follow through with its promised remedies.
  3. This amount is in addition to its own £260 compensation that it must also pay any part of that it has not already done so.
  4. The landlord must provide us with evidence of its compliance with these orders within 4 weeks.