London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202433861)

Decision
Case ID	202433861
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenant
Date	22 December 2025

Background

1. In March 2023, the resident said that the landlord’s contractor caused water and fire damage to her property and belongings. She said the landlord did not investigate, resolve the repairs, or her complaint about the contractor’s damage, despite her raising it 3 times.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of reports of fire and water damage to the property and belongings.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of reports of fire and water damage to the property and belongings.
   2. Severe maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that the landlord:
   1. Failed to acknowledge a request for repairs.
   2. Failed to undertake the necessary investigation into the request for repairs.
   3. Failed on 2 occasions to respond to a complaint.
   4. Did not complete an effective investigation into the resident’s complaint or provide an appropriate resolution.
   5. Failed to communicate with the resident, which exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on the resident.
   6. Did not act in accordance with its complaints policy or the 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.

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 provided by the chief executive. 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 23 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £950 made up as follows: £600 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in handling of fire and water damage to the property and belongings. £350 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord must pay the resident directly by the due date and provide documentary evidence of the payment.	No later than 23 January 2026
3	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the area where the resident has alleged that the water and fire damage has occurred and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 2 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord provide its liability insurers details for the resident to make a claim for any damaged belongings as a direct result of water and fire damage caused by the landlord’s contractor.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 July 2023	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said that during a repair in May 2023, the landlord’s contractor damaged a pipe, which caused a leak and damaged the ceiling, laminate floor, wall, skirting, and decorations. Further, she said the contractor had also caused damage by fire (soldering) to pipes, shelves, carpets/floor, and the water cylinder. She wanted the damage to be repaired or replaced.
15 March 2024	The resident contacted the landlord and spoke to the area manager regarding her complaint, she followed up the call with photos of the damage.
11 November 2024	The resident wrote to the landlord and said she was raising the complaint again.
14 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that its contractor had responded to the complaint in September 2023 and that as the complaint was raised more than a year ago, it would not be investigated further.
18 November 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She disagreed with the landlord’s response. She said she spoke to the landlord in March 2024 and had called the call centre on numerous occasions to make the complaint.
29 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed its position as detailed within the stage 1 response and said that the complaint had exhausted its internal process and had now concluded.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response regarding her complaint. She said although compensation had been paid for a complaint regarding a loss of heating and hot water, the complaint regarding the damage to the area and her belongings was a separate complaint and had not been resolved. She wanted the landlord to make good the damage caused by either repair or replacement.

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	Landlord’s handling of reports of fire and water damage to the property and belongings
Finding	Maladministration

5. On 5 July 2023, 14 March 2024, and 11 November 2024 the resident told the landlord that its contractor damaged the property. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident or attended the property to inspect or complete repairs. This was not in line with its repairs policy or its 20-working day timeframe for routine repairs.
6. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with its contractor regarding the repair or ensured that the resident’s reports were being investigated and dealt with. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Repairs emphasises that clear, transparent communication throughout the repair process is essential to rebuilding trust, avoiding frustration, and ensuring residents feel respected. In this case, the communication failings exacerbated the situation, delayed resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on the resident.
7. The resident also reported damage to her belongings, which included furnishings. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is not responsible for the resident’s personal items. However, the landlord should have signposted the resident to its liability insurer or advised her to claim on her contents insurance. The landlord’s evidence does not show that this information was provided, which is a failing on the landlord’s part. We recommend that the landlord provides the resident with its insurers details.
8. The resident has told us that the damage remains. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to provide, to this service, details of its actions to support an investigation. However, there is no explanation or evidence to indicate that the landlord has completed any repairs or discussed the matter with the resident. This is a failing, an order has been made for the landlord to inspect the property and complete any repairs it is responsible for.
9. Considering the above, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint regarding fire and water damage was inadequate, unfair, and unreasonable. Repairs have remained outstanding since July 2023, despite the resident’s repeated reports to the landlord. The landlord’s poor communication and failure to act has caused the resident time and trouble. These failings amount to maladministration and our remedies guidance states that compensation is appropriate where failures have adversely affected the resident.
10. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we consider that the landlord should pay the resident a total of £600. This can be broken down as £400 compensation for distress and inconvenience and £200 for the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Severe maladministration

11. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2022 and 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20-working days respectively. The landlord’s policy complies with these requirements.
12. The resident attempted to raise a complaint on 5 July 2023 and again on 15 March 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until the resident raised it for a third time on 11 November 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy states that all complaints will be logged, acknowledged, and investigated. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the earlier complaints. The resident should not have had to raise the complaint 3 times for it to be acknowledged. This was unreasonable and was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
13. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 November 2024 and commenced an investigation. It provided its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement and response within the 5-working day and 10-working day timeframes. This was reasonable and in line with its policy and the Code.
14. During its investigation, the landlord found that its contractor had responded to the resident’s complaint in September 2023. After reviewing that response, the landlord’s complaint handler suggested treating the matter as a new complaint because the September 2023 response did not reference the issue. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take and was in line with its policy, which requires it to ensure complaints are correctly identified and logged. However, the landlord did not pursue this suggestion and instead issued a final response stating that the contractor had already responded.
15. The contractors September 2023 complaint response related to a lack of facilities, not the reported damage. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the responses the landlord has relied upon within its stage 1 and 2 complaint response (November 2024) were linked to a different issue; one that the resident explained was ongoing and settled during the same time period regarding a loss of heating and hot water.
16. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require landlords to correctly identify and log complaints, carry out a proportionate investigation, and ensure escalation rights are provided. In this case, the landlord failed to investigate the complaint despite the resident escalating it more than once. This has undermined the resident’s right to a fair complaints process and significantly delayed the resident in obtaining a final response in the resolution of her complaint.
17. Further, as the resident raised her complaint in May 2023, March 2024, and November 2024, it was not reasonable for the landlord to exclude the complaint on the grounds that it was over 12 months old. The Code requires landlords to accept complaints unless there is a valid reason for refusal, and the resident’s repeated contact indicated that the matter remained unresolved. The landlord could have provided a resolution much sooner by communicating with the resident.
18. While the landlord’s complaints policy suggest that contractors are able to respond to complaints, the landlord holds overall responsibility for conducting a thorough investigation because the contractor acts on its behalf. The landlord must ensure complaints are tracked, logged, and resolved in line with its own policy and the Code. This was not the case with regards to the resident’s complaint and was a failing.
19. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 November 2024. The landlord provided its complaint acknowledgement on 18 November 2024, called the resident on 20 November 2024 and on 29 November 2024 provided its stage 2 response. This was within the 5-working day and 20-working day timeframe.
20. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was inadequate and did not meet the standards set by its complaints policy or the Code. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint despite the resident raising it on 3 occasions. Further, it failed to complete an appropriate investigation, did not retain ownership of the complaint, did not confirm the complaint had been responded to and relied on its contractor without sufficient oversight. This lack of monitoring and failure to follow its policy caused unnecessary delay, leaving the complaint unresolved for over 18 months.
21. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, we have found severe maladministration in the landlords complaint handling. This is because there were serious failings and repeated failures, which had a detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord did not provide a service, put things right, or learn from outcomes. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation. The amount of compensation is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

22. Although the landlord did not respond to the resident’s first 2 attempts to raise a complaint, it acknowledged the complaint in 2024 when the resident raised it for the third time. This demonstrates that the landlord has improved its complaint handling more recently; however, it should continue to review its processes to ensure complaints are identified and acknowledged at the first point of contact to avoid unnecessary delay and escalation in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord did not correctly monitor its complaints process which indicates a record keeping failing. The landlord should consider how it can prevent this from happening again.
24. The landlord did not act or log a repair or a complaint when the resident initially contacted. This shows a record keeping failing and the landlord should take time to understand how this happened to prevent a recurrence.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident in this case was poor. We evidenced unanswered communications and have identified failings as a result. It is our findings that had the landlord proactively communicated with the resident then complaint may have been resolved much sooner.