London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202427832)

Decision
Case ID	202427832
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	18 November 2025

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant at the landlord’s property, which is disability-adapted, since 2018. She said the property oven stopped working in December 2023. The landlord initially said she was responsible for its repair. Disagreeing with this, in June 2024 she complained. During the complaint’s process, it agreed to pay for a replacement oven and offered compensation. However, the resident remained unhappy with its response and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Oven repair.
   2. Complaint.

Our decisions (determinations)

3. We found:
   1. The landlord provided reasonable redress for its failings in responding to the resident’s reports about the oven repair.
   2. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports that the property oven was not working. It incorrectly told her she was responsible for its repair and failed to address her valid arguments disputing that for up to a year. However, at stage 2 of its complaint’s process, it offered reasonable redress in line with our guidance on remedies. It made further errors, but it recognised these errors and sought reconciliation.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. Its delay responding at stage 2 was far beyond its policy timeframe and its offer of payment to recognise this was unreasonably low.

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 £100, inclusive of the £50 already offered for poor complaint handling. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to her complaint escalation for a prolonged period.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.   The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 December 2025.

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should clearly explain is position about whether it considers it or the resident is responsible for future repairs to the new oven, referring to relevant policy where necessary. As the resident has said she has not cashed the cheque the landlord sent to remedy the issue with the oven, it should liaise with her to ensure there are no difficulties with payment.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 February 2024	The landlord says the resident asked for a repair to the oven.
7 June 2024	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said the oven, which was part of a disability–adapted kitchen, had stopped working in December 2023. She said she had reported this but the landlord said it would not repair the oven because it was a “gifted” item, (an item the landlord considers the tenant is responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of). She said that the oven was not part of her “gifting agreement” with the landlord.
12 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 acknowledgement and decision. It said it was “upholding” the resident’s complaint (it did not say why). It said that, as the oven was a gifted item, it would not repair it. The resident replied the same day, saying that the oven was not a gifted item. She said she attached a copy of the gifting agreement which confirmed this.
18 June 2024	The landlord replied saying it had made further enquiries and found that it was “not responsible for ovens”. The resident replied on the same day, asking to escalate her complaint. She set out in more detail why she considered the landlord should replace the oven. She relied, for instance, on the terms of the tenancy. She said it was acting like a “rogue landlord”.
Between September 2024 and January 2025	The resident repeatedly chased a response from the landlord. At one point, in October, it said it would respond within 5 days. It did not do so but after the resident chased again, it tried to contact her in December 2024, when she provided pictures of the oven.
7 January 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused, accepting that the oven was not a gifted item. It offered: £360 for distress £360 for inconvenience £50 for poor complaint handling To cover the cost to replace and fit a new oven.
11 February 2025	The landlord asked for clarification from the resident about the cost of the oven and its installation. It said it understood it was £449 in total.
20 February 2025	The resident said the oven was “a little over” the original quote she had sent. The landlord, internally, asked for the amount the resident asked for to be paid.
27 February 2025	The resident informed the landlord that the oven had been delivered and fitted on 23 February 2025.  She asked when she would be reimbursed and whether she had responsibility for insuring it.
28 February 2025	The landlord requested a payment for £449 to be paid to the resident.
11 March 2025	The resident emailed the landlord to say she had not been reimbursed nor received a response to her enquiry about the oven’s insurance. The landlord said it had authorised a cheque. It also said it would update her about the insurance “as soon as I am able”. (The records show the officer concerned had made enquiries internally).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She said the landlord had failed to complete the actions it promised at stage 2 of its complaint process and was concerned that its mixed communication about who was now responsible for the oven meant it was trying to avoid responsibility for future repairs.

 

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 oven repair
Finding	Reasonable redress

Investigation scope

6. Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint, the resident asked the landlord about who would be responsible for any potential repairs to the new oven. She raised concerns about its response in her complaint to us, because she considered it to be unclear. However, this is not one of the issues that she complained about initially to the landlord. As such, in line with the rules under which we operate (the Housing Ombudsman Scheme), we may not investigate this issue. If she remains unhappy with the landlord’s replies to her enquiries, she can make a formal complaint to it and, if she is not happy with its response, she can ask us to investigate.

The oven repair

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will aim to complete day to day repairs within an average of 25 calendar days. It has accepted that this clearly did not happen in this case. It also accepted that it was wrong to tell the resident that the oven was a gifted item and therefore its repair was her responsibility. It fully accepted the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident as she had to manage without an oven for over a year.
8. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we consider whether any redress it offered to put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether its offer of redress (an apology, covering the cost of a new oven and compensation), was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
9. The landlord’s apology, coming alongside its frank acceptance that its approach had been wrong and that it recognised it had caused the resident distress and inconvenience, was in line with our dispute resolution principles. The compensation was in line with our guidance on remedies. In its stage 2 complaint response it said it would provide feedback to its teams to ensure it was providing accurate information to customers, which demonstrates an acknowledgement and willingness to ensure it improved its services.
10.           After sending the stage 2 response, the landlord made payment of the sum it understood to be appropriate within a reasonable time of the resident informing it of the cost. However, she had told it that the cost had increased slightly. It did not appear to appreciate there had been an increase and only sent her the amount she had initially asked for. Later, it offered to pay the remaining cost and a reasonable sum for the continued distress caused. It made the mistake of saying it would credit the sum to the resident’s arrears when she was not in arrears. However, it corrected this and offered her a cheque. All these actions were aimed at reconciliation and were reasonable and were sufficient to fully redress its failings.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

11.           The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. The landlord provided a stage 1 response within the timeframe. However, it took 113 working days to respond to the resident at stage 2.
12.           During this time, the resident repeatedly chased a response. She explained to the landlord that its seeming refusal to engage with her was causing her distress. If it had processed her complaint to stage 2 in line with its timeframes, its repair error, would have been remedied at a much earlier stage.
13.           The landlord offered the resident £50 for poor complaint handling. However, given the extent of the delays and the failure to explain why they were so significant, we have made an order increasing that amount.

Learning

Communication

14.           The landlord’s communication, other than at or around stage 2 of the complaint, was poor. Despite the resident chasing it for a response to a repair that would undoubtedly have caused her inconvenience, it consistently failed to respond either at all or with understanding or empathy.