London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202431947)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house. In April 2024, she reported a water leak from her bathroom through into the kitchen ceiling. In September 2024, she complained to the landlord about incomplete and poor quality repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Bathroom and kitchen leak repairs.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bathroom and kitchen leak repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of bathroom and kitchen leak repairs

4. The landlord took more than 7 months to complete routine follow-on repairs. Its policy timescale says it will complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. Its compensation offer was not proportionate to the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord provided its complaint responses in line with its policy timescales. However, it did not give timescales or a proposed complaint resolution in its stage 1 response. It did not acknowledge this failure under its policy in its stage 2 response.

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.

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 landlord’s repairs policy gives an average response time of 25 calendar days for a routine repair. It will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe ahead of booking any follow-on routine repairs.
7. The landlord attended the resident’s first report of a leak in April 2025 within its 25-calendar day policy timescale. It was fair of the landlord to use its knowledge to categorise the repair as routine. It resealed the bath but the next day, the resident reported the repair failed and the leak restarted every time she used the bath or shower.
8. The landlord resealed the bath within its policy timescale. After the appointment, it raised works to replace the cracked basin, bath surround, and bath panel. Its contractor again attended within its policy timescale to complete these works.
9. However, 2 weeks later the resident reported the contractor did not fit the bath panel. She said they left it with her as the landlord had not approved it, saying they would return to fit another. She had heard nothing since. The landlord raised the works, but its repairs records show it cancelled the job. It is unclear why it did so.
10. There are no further records of the landlord attending or arranging these works ahead of the resident’s complaint in September 2024. Its complaints team asked for an update from its repairs team but had not received a reply when providing the stage 1 response. It was therefore unable to provide her with any meaningful information.
11. On 19 September 2024, the resident reported an uncontainable leak from a pipe under the kitchen units. The landlord attended within its emergency repair timescale and stopped the leak. It had to cut into her kitchen units to do so and raised works after to replace the damaged units and plinth.
12. The landlord had not completed either the kitchen, or bathroom works when the resident escalated her complaint. She also told it about a hole and crack in the kitchen ceiling from the bathroom leak. In early November 2024, she expressed frustration about a second assessment appointment for works because it forgot to take photographs during the first. She described the impact of this on her work.
13. In its final complaint response, the landlord told the resident it would complete works on 21 and 22 November 2024. Its compensation policy sets out its approach to calculating compensation offers based on impact. In this case, it considered the impact on the resident to be low for its service not achieving the expected standard. It offered £180. At this stage, 7 months had passed which far exceeded its policy timescales and its offer was not proportionate to the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident.
14. The landlord cancelled the appointment on 21 November 2024 due to staff sickness. This was unavoidable. However, it then did not complete repairs until 7 December 2024, a further 2 weeks later.
15. Overall, we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bathroom and kitchen leak repairs. We have ordered the landlord to pay its original £180 compensation offer to the resident, along with an added £150 for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when a landlord has acknowledged failings and made some effort to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation. We have also ordered it to pay £218.90 compensation based on rent for the resident’s loss of enjoyment of the home.

16. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the escalation request. Its policy is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The landlord’s policy says it will provide timescales and explain how it intends to resolve the complaint in its stage 1 response. In this case, it provided a brief response within 4 working days of receipt. It said it contacted relevant internal teams for information and would update the resident when it had a response. We cannot see it updated her after this. This was not in line with its policy. It would have been good practice to wait for the internal update and send its response when it could provide more information.
18. The landlord provided a more comprehensive response at stage 2, and it sent both its responses within policy timescales. However, it did not acknowledge its failure to update her after its stage 1 response. As such, we found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay £100 compensation to the resident and apologise for the failures found. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failure by the landlord which it did not appropriately acknowledge.

Learning

19. The landlord is responsible for the work completed by its contractors. It is unclear why it cancelled works to install the bath panel when it found its contractor did not fit it. It would have been good practice to investigate the issue with the contractor and complete works.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. We found no concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

21. The landlord’s communication improved once the resident’s complaint reached stage 2 of its process. Before this, it did not keep her regularly informed on the status of repairs.