London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202417994)

Decision
Case ID	202417994
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 December 2025

Background

1. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she has a sight impairment. Also, at the time of her complaint her mother, who has Parkinsons disease, was living with her.
2. On 15 December 2023 the resident told the landlord she could smell gas in her property. It confirmed a gas leak at her property the same day. It capped the gas for safety reasons, provided her with electric heaters and a portable oven and said it would investigate the source of the leak and complete the necessary repairs.
3. The resident complained to the landlord. She said it had taken too long to repair the gas leak and had taken up the flooring unnecessarily.

What the complaint is about

4. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a.             Reports of a gas leak and the associated repairs.

b.             The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We found service failure in

a.             The landlord’s handling of reports of a gas leak and the associated repairs.

b.             The landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Gas leak and associated repairs

6. The landlord repaired the gas leak in line with its repairs policy. While it needed multiple inspections to find the source of the leak and ascertain the appropriate repair, its actions were reasonable. Its complaint response acknowledged the inconvenience to the resident, the loss of heating and hot water and the additional electricity costs accrued. It also gave correct information on how to make an insurance claim.

Complaint Handling

7. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 2 working days over its policy deadline but was not acknowledged in its response. Furthermore the incorrect date stated on its stage 2 response caused confusion and impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to assess its overall complaint handling.

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 order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: –          £200 for the failings identified in this determination about the landlord’s handling of the gas leak and associated repairs. –          £50 for confusion caused by dates dated in stage 2 response. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 20 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 December 2023	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said: She had recently reported a gas leak and had her gas supply turned off the same day. Since then several engineers had inspected the leak but no repair had taken place. Some engineers had promised further visits from colleagues that never happened. The electric heaters it had provided were not sufficient in heating the property and were expensive to run. She wanted it to tell her when the gas leak would be repaired and for it to offer compensation for the inconvenience and additional energy costs she had incurred.
11 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It had attended the same day of the resident’s report on 15 December 2023 and confirmed a gas leak. It had capped the gas for safety reasons while it investigated the source. After several inspections, including a need to lift the flooring, it had re-run new gas supply pipework and the repair was completed on 10 January 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience and offered £291.26 compensation to cover the loss of hot water and heating as well as the additional energy usage. She would need to raise a claim with its insurer for the flooring if she wanted reimbursement.
14 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: The landlord’s stage 1 response had omitted key information relating to the repair. Several of its engineers had promised follow up visits that never occurred. This meant she had repeatedly chased it for updates. The lack of heating and hot water had impacted her, and her mother’s, health. She felt it had not assessed the leak sufficiently before lifting the flooring and that this could have been avoided had it done so.
???	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It: Provided a timeline of events relating to the gas leak from its own records. Said the issue was complex and therefore several teams and contractors needed to inspect the leak before it could complete the repair. Advised her she could raise a claim with its insurers for the flooring and any personal illness the issue may have caused. Gave her information on how to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman she said: The landlord took too long to repair the gas leak and had not taken responsibility for its contractor’s mistakes. She felt it had caused unnecessary delays by completing multiple inspections without doing any work. It had taken up her flooring unnecessarily and just told her to raise an insurance claim for this. The flooring was now a trip hazard. She wanted it to either replace her flooring or compensate her for it.

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	Gas leak and associated repairs
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

8. When bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident said the loss of gas led to her, and her mother, becoming ill.
9. Although the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience of the situation on the resident, we cannot assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. That is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue the option.

What we investigated

10. The terms of the resident’s occupancy agreement say the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of all fixtures and fittings relating to the supply of gas.
11. The landlord’s gas safety policy says when it caps the gas supply to a property, it will then compete a risk assessment for the resident and any occupants of the household. It also says it will consider any vulnerabilities in the household.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for investigating gas leaks. It says it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours to either repair, or make safe, the issue. It aims to complete routine repairs within 25 working days. It also says it is not responsible for any flooring in a property, apart from the flooring in the kitchen and bathroom.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay compensation where there has been a loss of heating and/or hot water. It says where any damage has occurred due to its contractor’s negligence it will refer the resident to its insurance team.
14. The resident complained that the landlord took too long to repair the gas leak. She said it carried out multiple inspections during this time, which she believed slowed the repair. She stated that promised engineer visits did not happen on several occasions. She felt the electric heaters provided were not enough to heat the property in winter, and she incurred extra electricity costs by using them. She also said it removed her flooring unnecessarily because it later installed new pipework instead. She asked for compensation for the extra heating costs, the inconvenience caused, and either replacement or reimbursement for the flooring.
15. In the landlord’s response it said it attended to the resident’s reports of gas leak the same day and made the issue safe by capping the gas and providing heaters and a portable oven while it completed further investigations. It acknowledged it, and its contractors, had completed multiple inspections of the issue. However, it attributed this to the complex nature of locating the leak and working out the best way to repair.
16. The landlord said it was necessary for it to take up the flooring as part of its investigations and explained how she could raise an insurance claim for any damage. It apologised for the inconvenience the issue caused and offered £291.26 compensation comprised of:

1.                £10 right to repair.
2.                £52 for loss of service (hot water).
3.                 £52 for loss of service (heating).
4.                £30 for distress caused by loss of facilities.
5.                £117.26 for additional fuel costs over 26 days.

17. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It treated the gas leak as an emergency, attended the same day and made the property safe by capping the gas. All of this was in line with its repairs policy. Likewise, it completed the repair in 15 working days. This was also in line with its repairs policy and the 25 working day deadline for routine repairs.
18. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its investigations meant different contractors and engineers had to complete several inspections of the property. It acknowledged this was inconvenient for the resident, which was appropriate to do, in the circumstances. Nevertheless, nothing in the evidence indicates the number of inspections carried out over the 15 working days was unreasonable due to the complex nature of the repair.
19. Given the problem arose in the winter months, it was appropriate for the landlord to provide electric heaters and a portable oven to the resident on the day it capped the gas. It also recognised that she was without heating and hot water for 26 days and compensated her for this loss of service in line with its compensation policy.
20. The landlord recognised the additional cost of running the electric heaters and reimbursed the resident for that.
21. The landlord’s response that it needed to lift the flooring as part of its investigations was reasonable. The leak was identified as coming from a pipe underneath the living room floor which it needed access to. It only became aware that the pipe was buried in concrete when it lifted the floor. It also complied with its repairs policy by explaining it was not responsible for the flooring and that should any damage have occurred by it, or its contractors, she would need to raise an insurance claim. Nothing in the evidence indicates the landlord’s repair actions or the time it took to resolve the issue were inappropriate, or that it missed any opportunities to complete the work sooner.
22. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord missed opportunities to support her. There is no evidence it completed a risk assessment for her and her household at the time it capped the gas. This was not appropriate considering its gas safety policy says it should do this and it had records confirming there were vulnerable people in the household at the time.
23. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord ensured, despite not being responsible for the flooring, that it had left the floor in a safe condition, such as free from trip hazards, after completing works. This was not reasonable given the resident has a sight impairment. It failed to respond to her concerns about the trip hazard, which was not reasonable considering her sight impairment.
24. Overall, the landlord’s response was, on the whole, reasonable. It responded to the gas leak in line with its repairs policy, recognised the inconvenience the issue had and offered reasonable compensation for the loss of service and additional electricity costs in its response. Although it handled the gas repair well, it failed to risk assess the works or address the resident’s concerns about a trip hazard left over from the work, both of which were failings in light of the resident’s circumstances

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

25. The landlord’s complaint policy says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says it can extend either deadline by a further 10 working days if needed and agreed with the resident.
26. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 12 working days after the resident complained. This was 2 working days over the deadline set out in its policy and there is no evidence it agreed a deadline extension with her. It failed to acknowledge this delay in its response, which was not appropriate as this was not in line with the Code. Nonetheless, the delay was very short and there is no evidence of any meaningful impact from it.
28. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response was dated 6 January 2024, which predated its stage 1 response and the resident’s escalation request. In its response it referred to her escalation from 14 January 2024, so it is understood that the date stated was incorrect. Because of the error it is not apparent when the final complaint response was issued, and it is not possible to say if it was within the relevant timescales.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. On the whole the landlord had thorough records relating to this case.

Communication

30. The landlord should ensure it quotes correct dates on its correspondence with residents. The date it gave on its stage 2 response was before it issued its stage 1 response and caused confusion. It also impacted the investigation’s ability to assess its handling of the complaint.