London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202425653)

Background

1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident reported a leak on 22 September 2023 and reported a month later the bedroom ceiling had collapsed. The landlord resolved the leak by12 April 2024 and completed plastering work to the ceiling on 9 September 2024. The landlord then inspected the ceiling after the resident raised concerns about the quality of plastering. The resident initiated legal action against the landlord for disrepair after its final complaint response. The landlord settled the claim and completed the works by 14 April 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak and repairs to the bedroom ceiling.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and repairs to the bedroom ceiling.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Leak and Ceiling Repair

4. The landlord did not attend the property to make it safe after the resident reported the leak and collapsed ceiling. It then did not resolve the leak or plaster and redecorate within a reasonable timescale. In its final response the landlord acknowledged its failings and arranged to replaster and redecorate. It also offered compensation. After the works did not progress as planned the resident then initiated a disrepair claim which included these issues. The landlord agreed to settle the claim and to complete the works. As the resident accepted the settlement offer, and the landlord completed the recommended works within the settlement timeframe, these actions were sufficient to put things right.

Complaint

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints handling policy and our Complaint Handling Code (our Code).

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The disrepair claim settlement was made before legal proceedings commenced. As such, we have jurisdiction to look at the complaint given it did not proceed to court.
7. The resident first reported the leak and concerns the bedroom ceiling would collapse on 22 September 2023. The landlord arranged a visit the same day but noted it could not access the property. It did not arrange a follow-up visit after this. The resident reported the ceiling had collapsed on 27 October 2023. The landlord then raised several repair visits, one within the landlord’s 24-hour timeframe for emergency repairs. However, it was not clear from its records if it assessed the ceiling as safe or completed any works in these visits.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 25 days. It delayed resolving the leak for over 5 months until 12 April 2024. Following completion of the leak repair, it then raised plastering works to repair the ceiling. It was reasonable to wait until it resolved the leak to raise the ceiling repair. However, it further delayed the ceiling repair for nearly 5 months, and until 9 September 2024. During its delay it showed poor coordination of works and did not chase its first contractor to complete the repair. It did not provide any reasonable explanation for the delay.
9. The resident complained that the plastering works were of poor quality. In its stage 1 response on 18 September 2024, the landlord explained it had arranged for its surveyor to inspect the ceiling. It said it would then decide if it would replaster and redecorate. Following its inspection, the landlord issued its final response on 30 September 2024. It confirmed that a new contractor had been arranged to replaster the ceiling on 28 October 2024. In its internal records it included redecoration as part of this repair job and also offered £450 compensation. This demonstrated a resolution focused approach.
10. However, the landlord did not communicate its decision to redecorate directly to the resident. Its records show the landlord did not proceed with the repair as planned because the contractors reported the work was more extensive than expected and required further planning. However, we have not seen this or that it clearly communicated any delays to the resident. When it tried to rearrange this work the resident refused access. It is unclear whether this was because he had then initiated a disrepair claim or due to the landlord’s poor communication. However, following this any further delay was outside of the landlord’s control due to the resident’s refusal to make arrangement.
11. During the course of the complaint, the resident told the landlord several times he was not able to use the bedroom since the ceiling collapsed. He told us it caused him significant inconvenience having to take time off work to be available for several contractor appointments. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the delays in the repairs, we do not consider that the offer during its complaints process was going to be sufficient to resolve the complaint. However, the landlord offered further compensation as part of a settlement.
12. The resident initiated a disrepair claim on 23 October 2023. An independent inspection in February 2025 identified a number of repairs, including works relating to the bedroom ceiling. The landlord and the resident agreed to settle the whole claim for £1,200 on 13 March 2025. As the resident accepted the amount, we are satisfied that this was enough for resolution. A repairs invoice it provided shows it completed the works on 14 April 2025, and post inspected them on 25 May 2025. This was within the 120 day timeframe in the settlement. We have considered the settlement offer as part of the landlord’s proposed resolution as it included the same issue which was the subject matter of this complaint.
13. While the issues continued beyond the end of the landlord’s complaint handling process, the further delays were caused by the resident’s refusal to make an arrangement for repairs. Additionally, after the resident accepted its settlement offer, the landlord completed the repairs in line with the settlement’s timeframes. Its actions therefore constitute a reasonable remedy.

14. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It will acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. These timeframes are in line with our Code. The landlord responded within its timeframes. It acknowledged both stages within one working day, responded at stage 1 in 7 working days, and at stage 2 in 8 working days.
15. The landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for a delay at stage 2. We did not identify any delay. However, as the landlord offered this to the resident, we recommended it honour the payment.

Learning

16. In this case the landlord showed poor repair coordination which contributed to its delay. It is important that the landlord follows up with its contractors to complete repairs within its policy timeframes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. We saw several instances of unclear repair records. For instance, it was unclear whether the landlord completed a planned appointment on 12 January 2024. It was also not always clear what work the landlord completed in each appointment. Clear records are important for landlords to evidence its actions and manage complex repairs. In this case, the landlord’s poor record keeping hindered its ability to do so.

Communication

18. The landlord did not clearly communicate to the resident it planned to complete redecoration works as well as replastering in its final response. We also did not see clear communication with the resident in advance of all of its appointments. It is important for a landlord to communicate clearly when scheduling appointments to avoid any frustration, inconvenience or misunderstandings.