London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202440806)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1st floor flat. As part of renovation work, he arranged a survey which found previous loft alterations were done incorrectly. He said the surveyor told him the roof was unsafe because of the alterations. He made the landlord aware and asked it to fix it under its obligations as the freeholder.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s roof repair.
   2. No maladministration 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 the resident’s roof repair

4. The landlorddid not complete follow on work until the resident complained. It said in September 2024 it would start its Section 20 process on receipt of quotes but at the time of this report, it has not started it. Its communication with the resident was poor.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy timescales.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident said the repair delay impacted his mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident wants the landlord to fix the roof without any further delay. We cannot order it to expedite the repair. The resident is a leaseholder and there is another flat in the building. The repair needs to be completed through a Section 20 process, which is a legal procedure. We cannot determine whether the Section 20 consultation is valid or sufficient. Any such challenge would need to be made to the First‑tier Tribunal (FTT). We have considered how the landlord handled his concerns overall and whether it acted fairly and reasonably.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord inspected the property on 5 October 2023. It did not provide evidence of what prompted this inspection. The inspection recommended for a roofer to inspect the timber work inside the loft. The landlord did not arrange the follow-on inspection or update the resident, which caused him time and trouble complaining.
9. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged an inspection in April 2024. The inspection found damaged and missing trusses in the loft which it said could impact the rigidity of the roof. It was unclear when or why the previous poor workmanship occurred. The inspection also found holes that allowed daylight and indicated a potential risk of leaks. We have not seen evidence of reported leaks during the period considered.
10. Between May and August 2024, the landlord made enquiries about the repair, the resident’s lease and its repair responsibilities. During this period, the resident contacted the landlord regularly for updates. He said he planned to sell the property and was concerned about the impact of the roof issue on the sale. Its complaints handler continued to chase the matter internally but received delayed responses with no clear update or timescale to give to the resident.
11. In its stage 2 response in September 2024, the landlord said it would need to complete the repair through its Section 20 process. This is a legal consultation a landlord must carry out before doing major works that will cost leaseholders more than a set amount. It ensures leaseholders are told about the planned works, can comment, and nominate contractors. The landlord did not explain the process or provide timescales. Its policy says residents should allow 3 to 4 months from the notice of intention to contract award. At the time of this report, around 16 months later, the landlord has not started the consultation process.
12.  The Section 20 is a statutory process, but the landlord is expected to manage it proactively and communicate clearly with residents. The landlord said there were internal changes and issues with contractor availability. However, it did not keep the resident appropriately informed. It did not explain the reasons for the delay, timescales, or set out the stages and likely duration of the Section 20 process.
13. The resident told the landlord the roof was unsafe and said he was concerned for his safety. Its inspection in April 2024 did not comment on the roof’s safety. However, a quote obtained by the landlord in September 2024 said the roof had holes and was unsafe because of the alterations. It is unclear what actions the landlord took to ensure the resident’s safety and if it considered any remedial temporary measures. If urgent repairs are needed, landlords can apply to the FTT to bypass the consultation. We have not seen evidence it considered this.
14. Due to the landlord’s delay starting the Section 20 process and its poor communication, we found maladministration. In its stage 2 response it offered £40 compensation. Its offer is not proportionate to the failings we identified. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation which is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to write to the resident to explain the Section 20 process and whether any temporary repairs are needed in the meantime.

15. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. This is in line with our complaint handling code (the Code).
16. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint in line with its complaints policy timescales.
17. The resident was unhappy the landlord closed his complaint while the repair was outstanding. In accordance with the Code, it must provide a complaint response when the answer to the complaint is known, not when it completes the outstanding actions to address the issue.
18. In view of the above, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

19. There are significant learnings for the landlord to take from this case to improve how it manages Section 20 cases. In December 2025 it completed a senior management case review. It identified several actions from the review.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. The resident said he reported the loft and roof issue prior to his complaint, but the landlord did not provide evidence of this and said there were no cases raised. It did not explain what prompted its initial inspection. The landlord should maintain clear and complete records showing when issues are reported and why inspections are raised.
21. The landlord did not provide evidence of its communication with the resident about its Section 20 process following its stage 2 response. The landlord should keep records of all communication with residents to demonstrate how it kept them informed and managed expectations throughout the repair process.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication was poor. It should consider how it can improve its repair updates with residents by giving clear, timely, and proactive updates, particularly where repairs are delayed or subject to statutory processes.
23. The landlord’s stage 2 response referred to the resident escalating his complaint on a date different to that in its evidence. It did not provide a likely timescale for the work.   The landlord should ensure its complaint responses are accurate and provide timescales where possible to manage resident’s expectations.
24. The landlord should respond promptly to resident enquiries and ensure complaint handlers receive accurate and meaningful updates to share with residents.
25. Where internal challenges arise, such as contractor availability or service backlogs, the landlord should explain the reasons for any delays, the key steps involved and likely timescales.