London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202434109)

Decision
Case ID	202434109
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 February 2026

Background

1. The resident has previously reported leaks and complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports in 2022. This investigation is focused on the resident’s complaint made in November 2023 about a leak resulting in damp in the kitchen.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about a leak and resulting damp.
   2. Formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a leak and resulting damp.
4. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not repair the leak or address the resulting damp in line with its policy timeframe and procedure. There were delays in arranging repairs, and it did not keep the resident adequately updated.
6. There were delays and a lack of updates in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint. However, it has acknowledged its failures and offered proportionate redress.

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 £400 for any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a leak and resulting damp (inclusive of the £50 previously offered). The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 20 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should re–offer the resident £160 for the identified complaint handling failures, if not already paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 November 2023	The resident complained to the landlord and said she was unhappy with the time it was taking to treat damp in the property. She said she had been reporting the issue for a year, but nothing had been done, and the damp was getting worse.
10 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and said: It had completed repairs in June 2023 and thought the issue was resolved. It had then received a report of a leak in the kitchen on 18 September 2023. A plumber attended on 3 November 2023 and requested a survey. This was booked for 16 November 2023. Once the surveyor sent their report, it would update her with details of the next steps. It would assess whether compensation was due at that time.
14 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint and said: She was unhappy with the continued delay. She had to cancel a repair for the kitchen flooring as the damp in it had not been resolved. The landlord’s contractor suggested work to the outside wall in 2018, and she believed the current damp issue would not exist if the landlord had completed this work.
24 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, summarising a timeline of events and actions taken. It accepted its service fell below standard, and said: It apologised for the delay in its complaint response. The surveyor recommended work was raised; the resident would receive appointment confirmations soon. It apologised for the issues she faced in contacting it and explained the reasons for this. It had provided feedback to relevant managers. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £210 in compensation (£160 for distress, inconvenience, time, and effort for its complaint handling and £50 for the delay in fixing the damp issue).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had failed to fix the issue despite many visits and surveys. She wanted it to complete the work and pay compensation.

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a leak and resulting damp
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident made a further complaint between July and August 2024 about the ongoing issue. We can only investigate complaints once the landlord has had the chance to put things right first. There is no evidence the resident referred the new complaints to us. Therefore, we have no power to investigate those issues. This investigation broadly considers events up to the landlord’s stage 2 response of April 2024. Complaints must also be referred to the landlord and us within a reasonable time, generally 12 months, of the resident first becoming aware of an issue. There is no evidence the resident referred her earlier complaints to us. Therefore, we have not investigated the landlord’s response in 2018.
8. The landlord’s repair policy says it’s responsible for repairing leaks, addressing penetrative and rising damp, and making good affected surfaces after a repair. It commits to responding to emergency repairs within 24 hours and aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. Its damp and mould policy says it deals with reports in line with its repair policy. It says following inspection it will raise remedial works within 10 working days. It commits to being clear with residents on timescales and to keep them informed throughout.
9. The resident reported a leak in the kitchen on 18 September 2023. The landlord’s repair log does not show how it categorised the repair, or what action it took in response to it or when. Its stage 1 response said a plumber attended on 3 November 2023; this was 46 calendar days later and outside its policy timeframe.
10. On 16 November 2023, a surveyor recommended work to address the damp. This was to clear guttering, repoint an external wall, dry out an affected wall with a dehumidifier before replastering and painting it, and to secure a loose wash basin. Other than a dehumidifier installation, the repairs were still outstanding at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response of 24 April 2024; 110 calendar days later.
11. The landlord has not explained why it did not respond promptly to the resident’s report of a leak. This also delayed its response to the resulting damp. The resident was chasing regularly for updates, highlighting the worsening damp, and expressing her distress at the ongoing situation and the inconvenience being caused. The evidence does not show that she was kept proactively or promptly updated; she was only given explanations for the delays after she requested them. She was not given appointment dates or even estimated timeframes for the repairs even after explicitly requesting them. The landlord’s handling of the repairs did not show it fulfilled its communication commitments within its policies.
12. The landlord has accepted its service failures, apologised, shared feedback internally, and offered £50 compensation. Its actions demonstrate that it took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and attempted to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
13. However, the £50 compensation the landlord offered was not proportionate to the delays in resolving the repair over the 7‑month period covered by this complaint. Our investigation assessed the landlord’s handling of the issue up to its stage 2 response in April 2024. We are aware the landlord later offered further compensation for subsequent complaints, but those matters did not form part of this investigation.
14. Therefore, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns. It is ordered to pay the resident £400, inclusive of the £50 already offered. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and reflects the delay, poor communication, lack of clear timeframes, the resident’s need to chase updates, and the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time required it to issue a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. At both stages, if it needed more time to respond it should write to the resident with an explanation. For extensions longer than 10 working days, it would try to agree this with the resident but if they were unhappy, it would direct them to us.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 1 working day after the complaint was made. Its stage 2 response was issued 71 working days after the resident’s escalation. The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 acknowledgement that its response would be delayed due to a high volume of complaints. However, it did not provide a revised timeframe or then keep her updated. This was not in line with its policy.
17. The landlord has fully acknowledged its complaint handling failures. It has apologised and offered £160 compensation for the distress, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance. Therefore, based on our findings, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter. The landlord should pay the £160 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s repair records lacked sufficient detail about the reported repairs, actions taken during visits, and any follow‑on work. Because of these gaps, we had to establish dates by referring to emails, complaint correspondence, and other communication between the parties. Member landlords must keep clear and comprehensive repair records and provide them to us when requested. The landlord’s evidence submission unnecessarily duplicated information multiple times, such as emails. This added avoidable delay to our investigation.

Communication

19. The investigation found gaps in the landlord’s communication, particularly in keeping the resident updated on repairs. The landlord did not consistently provide timeframes, proactively explain delays, or follow up. This created uncertainty and increased the resident’s need to chase for information.