London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202431752)

Decision
Case ID	202431752
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	16 January 2026

Background

The resident’s tenancy began in September 2024. She complained to the landlord about the condition of the property in August 2024, after collecting the keys prior to her move.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and subsequent repair reports.
2. Request for a new kitchen.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and subsequent repair reports.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and subsequent repair reports

The landlord failed to ensure all repairs were completed to a good standard during the void period.
The landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s concerns about mould on the bathroom ceiling.

Request for a new kitchen

The landlord provided the resident with a reasonable response to her request for a new kitchen.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s concerns about mould in the bathroom.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,078.74. This is made up of: £630 for failings in its handling of her concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and subsequent repair reports £348.74 rent refund previously agreed by the landlord. £100 for the impact of complaint handling failings. Any payment already made to the resident may be deducted from the total.	No later than 06 February 2026
3	The landlord must review whether it has sufficient processes in place to ensure repairs completed during the void period are to a good standard prior to new tenancies beginning.	No later than 20 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to update her on its current plans for replacing kitchens in her block.
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to address her concern about rust on kitchen hinges in line with its repairs policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about the condition of the property. She said it had given her £350 in decorating vouchers, but she wanted it to increase the amount and install a new kitchen.
28 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
15 October 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said it understood further repairs had since been completed by its void team. It said it had agreed to a 2-week rent refund (£348.74) in recognition of the issues. It also awarded her a payment of £380. This included £50 for delays in its complaint handling.
15 October 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She outlined her decorating and flooring costs. She said, while the landlord has completed kitchen repairs, these were not to a good standard and the kitchen was old. She said repair issues had delayed her installing appliances.
16 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
11 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had agreed a further payment to the resident of £650. It said that this, together with the £350 already awarded, was the maximum it could provide for decoration. It said that as a gesture of goodwill, it would pay an additional £150 for the inconvenience she had experienced since the start of her tenancy.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she wanted increased compensation and for it to provide a new kitchen.

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	Concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and subsequent repair reports.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident complained to the landlord on 23 August 2024, prior to her tenancy beginning. She set out her concerns about the condition of the property, including that kitchen cabinets were loose and part of a radiator was broken. She said walls were uneven and there were holes in a window frame (where cables had been installed). She also detailed mould on the bathroom ceiling.
The landlord’s void home standard sets out the standard its properties should meet at the start of a new tenancy. In line with this, internal decoration of the property was the resident’s responsibility. It says this includes minor plaster repairs. It also outlines that the landlord may provide a decoration voucher to the resident of up to a maximum of £1,000. It says the amount given will depend on the condition of the property. It also says that it was responsible for flooring in the kitchen and bathroom only. The landlord appropriately explained this to the resident in the stage 2 complaint response.
Records show a number of repairs the landlord completed during the void period. This work was completed by its contractor on 30 July 2024 and included work to the kitchen and bathroom. The handover photographs and report from this time do not detail any outstanding repairs. But the resident set out issues that should have been resolved prior to the start of the new tenancy. These included her concerns about the kitchen doors/drawers and mould on the bathroom ceiling and on silicone seals. The void home standard says that mould should be washed off and sterilised with an anti-fungal solution and that silicone seals should be replaced if defective. It also says that doors and drawers in the kitchen should be fully operational. That the landlord did not ensure all repairs were completed to a good standard in advance of the tenancy was a failing.
It was appropriate that the landlord later acknowledged and apologised to the resident that there were outstanding repairs at the tenancy. The landlord detailed in an internal email of 18 October 2024 that its contractor had attended again to complete several minor repairs in the kitchen and bathroom. This included work to renew sections of silicone seal in the bathroom and kitchen, to apply silicone to where radiator tails met the flooring. It also detailed work to adjust a kitchen unit door and to repair a kitchen drawer.
The landlord did not provide records of its communication with its contractor about this work. It should have done so to fully demonstrate what it did to respond to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property. For example, during her complaint the resident said that issues including an incorrect gas pipe had delayed her installing appliances. The resident said this issue had been resolved by the landlord’s contractor. But records do not detail what the issue was, or when further work was completed. This was a record keeping failing.
As a result of lack of records, it is also unclear when other work was completed at the resident’s property. However, the resident’s email to the landlord of 2 October 2024 stated that the contractor had booked to reattend on 4 October 2024. She set out on 11 October 2024 that work had been completed by this time, including to the kitchen units. But the landlord did not clearly show that it had addressed all the concerns she had raised.
Following her complaint escalation, the landlord arranged to attend again in mid-November 2024 to address the resident’s ongoing concerns about the kitchen units. It noted at this time that it had completed further work to ease and adjust some drawers. It also addressed the resident’s concerns about holes in a window frame and that internal doors were not closing properly. But she had raised these when she first complained on 23 August 2024. She should not have had to escalate her complaint before it took action to address them. The landlord’s delay in resolving all issues was a failing.
The landlord also did not demonstrate it had responded to the resident’s concerns about mould on the bathroom ceiling appropriately. As set out earlier, any mould should have been addressed during the void period. Its standard says that a property should be free of all mould. The resident later said the landlord’s officer had directed her to paint over the mould with anti-fungal paint. But the landlord should have taken steps itself to resolve her concerns.
In line with its damp and mould policy the landlord should have arranged to inspect the property within 20 working days to identify any underlying cause. That it did not take appropriate steps itself to address this mould issue is a failing.
Subsequently, the resident reported to the landlord on 14 January 2025 that mould in the bathroom was reoccurring. It took appropriate and timely action then to arrange an inspection of issues. Its contractor’s report of 28 January 2025 outlined checks it had completed of ventilation and heating, and advice it had provided to the resident. Further, it set out a mould treatment it had completed to areas within the bathroom. These actions were appropriate. But the landlord should have arranged this when the resident reported issues in August 2024. Had it done so, she may not have experienced the return of mould issues.
When the landlord provided its complaint responses to the resident it set out its payment to her of £1,000 for decoration, which was the maximum amount under its policy. It also outlined a 2-week rent refund it had agreed on 4 October 2024. This was in recognition of the delays in repairs. Further, it awarded her a total of £480 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by issues. This went some way towards recognising the impact of its failings. But, as set out above, the landlord did not adequately address or identify failings in its handling of mould in the bathroom. As a result, we have found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and subsequent repair reports.
With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make a further award to the resident of £150. This amount, together with the rent refund and £480 already awarded, is in line with our remedies guidance. It provides appropriate recognition of the impact on the resident of its failings.

Complaint	The resident’s request for a new kitchen.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident told the landlord during her complaint that she considered a new kitchen was needed. The landlord’s void home standard sets out that the property should have a reasonably modern kitchen. It says that doors and drawer units should be clean and fully operational. We have set out above failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs needed to the kitchen in advance of the resident’s tenancy. It subsequently attended in October and November 2024 to complete further work to the kitchen.
The landlord told the resident on 15 October 2024 that based on current stock condition information it would be looking to include kitchen replacements in her block within its 3-year planned programme. When it attended in November 2024 its operative noted again that the resident wanted a new kitchen. The operative detailed that the kitchen was serviceable and in good condition. At this time, the landlord took photographs and a video showing all drawers and doors in operation. We have seen no evidence it had identified any issues with the kitchen which meant it should be replaced.
Overall, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen. However, we have recommended that it contact her to update her on its current plans for replacing kitchens in her block. Further, as the resident told us of her concerns that some hinges in the kitchen are rusting, we have recommended that it contact her to address this in line with its repairs policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord in August 2024, the relevant Code was the April 2024 edition. We have found that:
1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complied with the Code in respect of timescales.
2. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint but delayed in providing its stage 1 response. This was provided almost 5 weeks outside its 10-working day.
3. There is also no evidence it contacted the resident during this time about the delay or to agree an extension. That was contrary to the Code. However, it appropriately apologised for the delay in its eventual stage 1 response and the £50 it awarded in recognition of this was appropriate.
4. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response within its target response time.
As set out above the landlord should have identified and appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about mould in the bathroom. That it did not do so was a failing. We have ordered that it apologise to her for this and pay a further award of £50 in recognition of this. This is in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.

Learning

The landlord should review whether it has sufficient processes in place to ensure repairs completed during the void period are to a good standard.
The landlord should remind its staff of the importance of communicating and agreeing with residents, extensions for complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should ensure that it keeps appropriate record of work completed by its contractors. Without doing so, it cannot adequately demonstrate how it has responded to repair issues raised.

Communication

The landlord did not communicate well with the resident at the outset to provide her with clear information about action it would take to address repair issues.