London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202448340)

Decision
Case ID	202448340 and 202415975
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	26 January 2026

Background

1. The resident is a shared owner leaseholder in a block of flats. Her property is linked to a communal heating system which provides residents with heating and hot water. The resident pays a variable service charge which includes charges for the operation and maintenance of the heating and hot water system. The resident raised formal complaints with the landlord about the loss of heating and hot water, the landlord’s communication in relation to the required works, and its overall management and maintenance of the communal heating plant room. She said she had been told that the temporary boiler was not fit for purpose and that it would keep failing. The resident said the landlord had breached the lease, behaved negligently, and fraudulently misused the service charge funds it had collected to maintain the communal heating and hot water system.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of the loss of heating and hot water and its maintenance of the communal heating system.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of the loss of heating and hot water and its maintenance of the communal heating system.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of the loss of heating and hot water and its maintenance of the communal heating system

5. The landlord responded to the reports of the loss of heating and hot water in line with its repairs policy and the lease. However, on occasion, it did not adequately respond to the resident’s emails and service charge queries. It also delayed in providing updates on the major works in the earlier stages of the process. It did not recognise or acknowledge its communication failures.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s first complaint and, when it did, the response was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord also did not adequately respond to the resident’s further requests to raise complaints and delayed logging a further complaint. It did not recognise or acknowledge its complaint handling failures.

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 a senior manager. 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 February 2026
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident: £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of the loss of heating and hot water and its maintenance of the communal heating system. £150 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 February 2026
3	Order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an appointment to discuss whether there is any further information she requires following her requests for information relating to the major works and service charges. If the landlord cannot provide the requested information, it should explain why, in writing, to the resident. The landlord must also sign-post the resident to relevant organisations (such as LEASE) who may be able to assist her should she wish to pursue the matter further. The landlord must confirm the outcome of the appointment in writing to both the resident and us by the due date.	No later than 23 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
January 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint as she was dissatisfied with the level of service and communication she had received in relation to the breakdown of the communal boiler.
25 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it was dealing with her complaint as a wider scheme complaint.
3 June 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord as she had not received a response to the scheme wide complaint and it had not informed her of the plan to fix the communal boiler.
3 June 2024	The landlord told the resident that it had logged her formal complaint. However, it said, because it was a site related issue, as opposed to an individual property concern, the complaint handlers were unable to provide an outcome response.
20 June 2024	The resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s maintenance of the communal heating plant room and its communication with residents.
7 August 2024	The landlord sent the resident a response to the scheme wide complaint. It said: it apologised for the inconvenience caused there had been a temporary plantroom on site since the end of January 2024 its contractors had inspected the plantroom to identify the scope of work needed and rather than replacing the heating on a like-for-like basis, it had referred the project to its major works team. The team were looking for the most efficient way to upgrade the system the temporary plantroom had failed several times over the last few weeks due to a tripped breaker. It had instructed its contractor to replace the temporary plantroom if it happened again it had received a number of queries about the cost of the temporary plantroom, project works and the service charge costs. However, it was not yet clear, without the full scope of the works, what the cost would be it would provide regular updates to residents
12 September 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint about the loss of hot water and the landlord’s maintenance of the communal heating plant room. She said it had been ongoing for over a year, and the temporary boiler had failed on several occasions. She said she believed the temporary boiler was not fit for purpose and that it would keep failing. The resident said she thought the landlord had breached the lease, behaved negligently by failing to maintain the plant room, and fraudulently mismanaged the service charges.
18 September 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It said it had raised a complaint action task and it would raise the following concerns with the operations team so they could investigate and ensure the issues were resolved: that the temporary boiler was not fit for purpose issues relating to the maintenance of the plant room
23 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She told the landlord it had failed to address the following concerns: that the landlord had failed to maintain the plant room and had let it fall into disrepair the fraudulent mismanagement of service charges paid towards the maintenance of the plant room that the landlord should cover the cost of the work due to its negligence that the landlord had breached the lease by not maintaining the plant room
10 October 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It said it did not uphold her complaint for the following reasons: its contractors had maintained the plantroom under a contract which included planned prevention maintenance and reactive maintenance it had taken ownership of the site in 2020 and due to the age of the site some of the equipment had come to the end of its life and needed replacing it had installed a temporary plant room to ensure a continued supply of heating and hot water the temporary system had failed on 3 occasions in July 2024 caused by a tripped breaker and on 1 occasion in September 2024 caused by a seized pump. It did not consider the failures excessive, and it had resolved all reported faults within 24 hours the cost for the operation and maintenance of the system was chargeable to the resident in line with the terms of her lease as she was receiving a service. It was unable to absorb the costs its obligation under the lease was to provide a supply and attend to any interruptions in the supply within a reasonable timeframe. It had attended and restored the supply each time a fault was reported. It did not uphold the resident’s suggestion that it had breached the lease it had sent communications to residents via text and in writing on 7 August 2024 and 26 September 2024 updating residents about its plans to renew the plant room its contractor had confirmed that the temporary plant room was sufficient and fit for purpose
9 December 2024	The landlord logged a formal complaint about the loss of hot water, breakdown of the plant room, and the use of a temporary boiler since January 2024 following contact from us.
16 December 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It said: the last report it had received relating to issues with heating and hot water was in September 2024, and it had completed the work the last plant room breakdown was in July 2024 and it had completed the repairs within 24 hours it had installed the temporary plant room while it was arranging major works to resolve the issues. Once the work had been completed the temporary boilers would be replaced it sent an update letter about the plant room to all residents on 18 October 2024 although there had been issues with heating and hot water it had completed the repairs within fair timescales and there were ongoing major works to resolve the issues
18 December 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said the landlord had failed to address the main point of her complaint which was that the landlord’s negligence had caused the plant room to fall into disrepair.
15 January 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response. It said it had nothing further to add as it had already addressed the resident’s concerns that its alleged negligence of the plant room caused disrepair.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaints. She said she wanted the landlord to confirm that it had failed to maintain the plant room and breached the lease. She said she wanted the landlord to apologise, install a new plant room free of charge, provide compensation, and refund her service charges.

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 response to reports of the loss of heating and hot water and its maintenance of the communal heating system
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

7. Part of the resident’s complaint is about future service charge costs, alleged fraudulent management of service charge funds, and the reasonableness of the charges. We may not investigate complaints about the level of rent or service charge or their increases, or where it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective to seek a remedy via another procedure, such as the Tribunal. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with the resident was fair and reasonable and whether it responded sufficiently to her queries. If the resident remains unhappy with the level of service charges, the level of increase in service charges, or the landlord’s management of the service charge funds, she may wish to seek independent advice.
8. The resident also raised concerns that the landlord has breached the terms of the lease and behaved negligently in relation to the maintenance of the plant room. We are unable to determine whether a landlord has breached the terms of the lease or behaved negligently, as this would be a matter for a court or tribunal to decide.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord raised a repair with a 4 hour response time on 15 January 2024 following reports of no heating or hot water from residents within the block. The records show that the issue had been ongoing since 10 January 2024. It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly when the landlord attended, what work it carried out, or whether it was able to fully resolve the issues.
10. The landlord’s records show that it raised a further emergency repair on 24 January 2024 due to further issues with the supply of heating and hot water to residents. In response, as it could not fix the boiler, the landlord installed a temporary boiler on 29 January 2024, which restored heating and hot water to the residents. Although this was disruptive to the resident, this was within the timeframe of 25 calendar days set within the landlord’s repairs policy for routine repairs. This was also in line with the resident’s lease which says the landlord may alter the arrangements for the provision of heating and hot water to the resident’s flat if, in the landlord’s opinion, it is for the benefit of the occupiers of the building.
11. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2024 asking for an update on the communal heating system. She said it had been over a month since the boiler issues and since then her service charges had increased by 25%. The resident asked the landlord to explain why the service charge had increased when it had not provided an adequate service. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s email.
12. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 12 March 2024 and 18 March 2024. The landlord responded on 18 March 2024. It apologised for the delay in providing the update and said it was working in the background to progress a permanent fixture as opposed to the temporary boilers it had installed. It said, while the temporary boiler was sufficient, it understood it was not a full solution. The landlord asked the resident to expand on any issues she was still facing so that it could consider whether it needed to raise a repair that was individual to her property. It said it had passed her service charge queries to a colleague to address as part of the wider scheme response. Although there was a delay in the landlord providing a response, the response was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it did not adequately address the service charge queries in the scheme wide complaint response.
13. The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 April 2024 and 10 April 2024 asking for an update. The landlord responded on 24 April 2024. It said it had not provided an update as its contractors had not yet visited the site to carry out their investigations. The resident asked who the contractor was and who would be paying for the work. She said, as a shared owner leaseholder, she was concerned that the landlord would expect her to pay additional service charges because it had not maintained the plant room over the years. The landlord did not respond further. This was unreasonable in the circumstances given that the resident was concerned about the potential increase in her service charge costs.
14. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 4 occasions between 3 May 2024 and 1 June 2024. The landlord responded on 3 June 2024 and said the operations management team should have contacted residents. The landlord said it would chase an update. Had the landlord arranged to provide regular updates to the affected residents, including the likely effect of the issues on the service charges, it may have reduced the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by having to chase the landlord.
15. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 20 June 2024. It said, following the installation of the temporary boiler on 29 January 2024, its contractors had carried out a full inspection and made recommendations for works to the heating system. It said its major works team would manage the work and the contractors would be on site to scope the works from the following week. It apologised if the resident felt she had not been kept updated but it said its priority had been to ensure that there was a reliable heating and hot water supply. It said it would keep residents updated going forward. Although the landlord made an apology of sorts for the delays in providing an update, it fell short of taking responsibility. The landlord should have been able to prioritise the works and keep the resident updated.
16. The temporary boiler failed on 12 July 2024, 18 July 2024, and 31 July 2024 caused by a tripped breaker. The landlord’s contractors restored the heating and hot water on each occasion within the 24 hour timeframe for emergency repairs set within its repairs policy. The boiler failed again on 7 September 2024 due to an issue with a pump. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it completed the repair. However, the landlord said it completed the work within the required 24 hours, and the resident has not disputed this.
17. The landlord’s contractors confirmed on 9 October 2024 that a 600kW temporary boiler had been installed to service the site, which had 155 heat interface units (HIU) in place. The contractor said this equated to 4kW per HIU, which was sufficient for the current demands. Despite the resident’s concerns that the temporary boiler was insufficient, it was reasonable of the landlord to conclude that the boiler was sufficient. This is because a landlord is entitled to rely on the observations and conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors.
18. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 18 October 2024 to inform her that a contractor had been appointed to carry out the improvement works to the plant room and heating system. The letter explained that the contractor would be carrying out work to the pipes within the building on 21 October 2024, which meant that there would be no heating or hot water from 9:00am until 5:00pm that day. The letter provided details of the contractor’s resident liaison officer in case of any queries. This was reasonable in the circumstances as it gave the resident an option to speak to the contractor if she had any queries or concerns about the works.
19. The whole block was without water on 29 October 2024. This caused the HIU to fail. The landlord attended and rectified the issue on the same day. This was within the timeframes set within its repairs policy.
20. The landlord provided detailed responses to a number of questions raised by residents on 6 December 2024 prior to a residents’ meeting. It confirmed that it had a robust process in place to manage its contractors carrying out services to the communal heating systems. It said it serviced and maintained the equipment in line with manufacturers’ guidelines. It said it received monthly reports from its contractors, which detailed all issues found and planned preventative maintenance carried out the previous month, and it held regular meetings. The landlord confirmed that the plantroom was over 12 years old and the boilers had not been replaced during that time. However, we have not seen a copy of the reports mentioned, so we have been unable to draw conclusions on the landlord’s servicing and planned preventative maintenance provision.
21. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it appropriately acknowledged that there had been issues with the supply of heating and hot water which had led to the installation of a temporary boiler. It also appropriately acknowledged that there had been occasions where the temporary boiler had failed. It confirmed that the failures had not been excessive and it had resolved the issues within the required timeframes. However, it did not recognise or adequately acknowledge its communication failures. It did not recognise that, on occasion, it had not responded to the resident’s emails or requests for information relating to service charges. It did not recognise that it had not provided the resident with adequate updates about the temporary boiler and major works during the earlier stages of the major works process.
22. Considering the above, the landlord has not shown that it fully put things right through the complaints process. On that basis, we find that there has been maladministration. We consider an order for the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £150 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
23. Following the conclusion of the complaints process, there were further heating and hot water outages. However, the landlord provided more regular updates to residents about the major works. It also confirmed that it had fully funded the major works to the communal heating system, plant room, and replacement of HIUs. It recognised that the interruptions had caused frustration, and it agreed to pay each property £50 as a gesture of goodwill. It also confirmed that it had provided annual compliance certification to the resident’s association for the main plant room going back to 2020, to confirm that the site had been compliant and operational. The landlord also confirmed that it had removed the costs for the temporary plant hire and a third party consultation assessment of the plant room from the resident’s service charges. This meant it would credit her service charge account with £394.11.
24. The landlord has also confirmed that the major works are almost finished, and the resident confirmed that there had been no issues or outages since October 2025.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

25. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
26. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord sometime in January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 January 2024 and said it would respond to the resident as part of a wider scheme complaint. The landlord sent the resident a complaint extension letter on 19 March 2024 due to the complex circumstances of the case.
27. The resident asked the landlord to raise a further formal complaint on 3 June 2024 as she had not had a response to the scheme wide complaint. The landlord said it had logged the complaint, but its complaint handlers were not able to respond as it was a site related issue rather than an individual issue. This is not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy as the policy does not separate complaints about site issues and individual issues.
28. The resident made further attempts to raise a formal complaint on 20 June 2024. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord raised a complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy which says it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
29. The landlord provided a response to the wider complaint on 7 August 2024. This was significantly outside of the 20 working days(including the extension period) from the date of acknowledgement set within the landlord’s complaints policy for stage 1 responses.
30. In addition to the delay, the landlord’s response was confusing and did not comply with the requirements of the Code. The landlord did not confirm the complaint stage or definition of the complaint. It also did not provide a decision on the complaint or give details of how she could escalate the matter to stage 2. It did give our details for escalation, although this would indicate a stage 2 response rather than a stage 1 response. It also gave residents incorrect out of date information as it said that they must wait 8 weeks to refer their complaint to us or refer their complaint to a ‘designated’ person.
31. The resident made a further request for the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 12 September 2024. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the landlord acknowledged the complaint. However, it issued a stage 1 response on 18 September 2024. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s policy. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 23 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and responded at stage 2 within the timeframes set within the landlord’s policy. However, the landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures within its complaint responses.
32. The landlord logged a further complaint about the same issues on 9 December 2024 following contact from us. It acknowledged the complaint and responded at stage 1 within the required timeframes. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged and issued the stage 2 response within the required timeframes.
33. In light of the identified failings, we consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Learning

34. The landlord should ensure it effectively communicates with residents when undertaking major works that could impact their service provision or have financial consequences. The landlord should also ensure it responds in a timely manner to resident’s seeking updates and information. The landlord should also consider sign-posting leaseholders to organisations such as LEASE when concerns are raised about service charge costs. The landlord should consider our spotlight report ‘A new lease of life’ on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds: complexity and complaint handling.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The evidence provided by the landlord was sufficient to conduct the investigation. However, it did not provide some key documents and there was some missing repairs information.

Communication

36. The communication with the resident was poor at times, particularly during the earlier stages of the major works process. There were occasions where the resident contacted the landlord asking for updates or information about her service charges, yet there is no evidence that the landlord responded.