London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202448645)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202448645 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London & Quadrant Housing Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
28 January 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a maisonette. She reported leaks from the flat above in December 2024 and again in March 2025.The resident’s upstairs neighbour is a leaseholder. The resident is dissatisfied with how long the landlord took to reinstate her lights and a power socket, which it had disconnected because of the leaks. She said further remedial works inside her flat, such as plastering, are outstanding. The resident is also dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication throughout the process and how it handled her complaint.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s reports of leaks and related repairs.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that:
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and related repairs.
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and related repairs
- The landlord recognised some of its failings and partly put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. However, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the impact on the resident of the failings identified by our investigation.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
- The landlord unreasonably delayed escalating the complaint to stage 2 of its process and it did not appropriately consider all related aspects of the complaint. Although it made an offer of compensation, this was not proportionate to the impact of the failings identified by our investigation.
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 member of staff. 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 26 February 2026 |
|
|
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any compensation payments it has already paid. |
No later than 26 February 2026 |
|
|
Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure any outstanding remedial work for which it is responsible under the tenancy agreement, and its policies is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date:
|
No later than 26 February 2026 |
|
|
Order The landlord must write to the resident confirming its stance on any of her personal belongings which suffered damage as a result of the leaks. If appropriate, it should provide details for how she can make a claim via its liability insurance. |
No later than 26 February 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
27 December 2024 |
The resident complained to the landlord about ongoing leaks from the upstairs flat and its lack of communication. She said that the recent leak started on 19 December 2024, however there had been similar issues between 2022 and 2023. She asked the landlord to provide a permanent solution. The resident also said that she had no lights in the bathroom and in one of her bedrooms, as well as no working fridge power socket. |
|
30 December 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and confirmed the actions it had taken within its emergency timescales. These included disconnecting the lights and the power socket. It said it had raised an urgent action to serve notice to the upstairs flat to remedy the kitchen waste pipe connection. It also said it had raised a complaint action for a member of staff to contact the resident urgently with an update and plans for resolution. |
|
9 January 2025 |
The landlord emailed the resident confirming it would arrange for a contractor to contact her neighbour and trace the source of the leak. The resident responded asking to be kept informed. |
|
21 January 2025 |
The resident emailed the landlord and said she was yet to receive an update after the last contact on 9 January 2025. She asked the landlord to provide a timeline of expected responses and stages of the complaint. |
|
19 March 2025 |
The resident emailed the landlord and said she was dissatisfied with how it handled her complaint and asked for it to be escalated. She said that she had still not received an update, the leak was ongoing, and some of her lights and sockets were still off. |
|
25 March 2025 |
The resident emailed the landlord, referring to a further leak which occurred on 23 March 2025. She said the landlord had disabled more of her lights, which meant she had no lights in the bathroom, both corridors and one of the bedrooms. She requested an urgent response and said the house was unliveable as some rooms were damp and mould was growing. The resident also raised concerns about electrical safety. |
|
28 July 2025 |
Following our intervention, the landlord issued its stage 2 response and it upheld the complaint. It apologised for its lack of communication following the original call outs and delays in completing the repairs. The landlord said that it attempted to reinstate the lights in March 2025 but could not gain access. It arranged another appointment to complete this on 18 August 2025.
The landlord offered the resident £140 compensation. This consisted of:
The landlord confirmed that it added training notes to the file to ensure that its future communication with residents is reviewed and improved. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because the remedial works in her flat were still outstanding. She said she had not been told what works were completed in the upstairs flat to resolve the leaks. She also told us her daughter could not use her bedroom for several months while it was damp, had to throw away her wardrobe, and kept her clothes in suitcases. To put things right, the resident wanted compensation and for the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs. |
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 reports of leaks and related repairs. |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The resident said that leaks from the upstairs flat occurred previously between 2022 and 2023. She referred to a surveyor visit in March 2023but said the landlord had not informed her about the outcome of this. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to investigate the issue whilst it is still ‘live’ and sufficient evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. As events become historical, it is more difficult for landlords or an independent body such asan Ombudsman to review actions taken. Given the time elapsed and the evidence available, we have not considered events before 20 December 2024 when the resident reported the leak which occurred shortly before her complaint to the landlord.
- The landlord attended the resident’s property on the night of her report, within its emergency out-of-hours repair timescale. It made safe the electrics by disconnecting the affected lights and a power socket, which was reasonable. The resident said another contractor attended the upstairs flat to trace the leak, although it is unclear whether it was the landlord or the neighbour that arranged this.
- A plumber, instructed by the landlord, attended the building on 23 December 2024 to trace the leak but received no access. It is unclear from the evidence whether the plumber was due to inspect the resident’s flat or the upstairs flat. In any case, there is no evidence the landlord agreed this appointment with the resident in advance. It also did not re-arrange it after this failed attempt. In its stage 1 response of 27 December 2024 the landlord said it would be serving notice to the upstairs flat to remedy the kitchen waste pipe connection.
- On 9 January 2025 the landlord updated the resident and said it had arranged for a contractor to contact her neighbour to check the source of the leak. It said it believed the leak was coming from the stack pipe. However, it provided no further updates to the resident after that date. This was despite 3 further emails the resident sent it, saying that the leak was ongoing and that the lights it had disabled were still not working.
- On 23 March 2025 the resident reported another leak from upstairs, which she described as “substantial” and “uncontainable”. The resident said the fire alarms were triggered as a result and she had called the fire service to assist. The landlord’s records show it attended within its out-of-hours emergency timescales. The resident confirmed that following this, she had no lights in the bathroom, both corridors and one of the bedrooms.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had attempted to reinstate the lights in March 2025, but it received no access. It said that it had sent a letter to the resident on 23 March 2025. However, it provided no evidence of this letter and the resident said she had not received it. It is also unclear why the landlord sent the resident a letter stating it had attempted to reinstate the lights on the same day as it attended to the second leak and disconnected more lights.
- On 25 March 2025 the resident emailed the landlord, attaching images of her flat. She told it that she was unable to contain the water from the leak and had resorted to using plastic bags on the bedroom floor. She said that the flat had become unliveable and dangerous as the leak had seeped through the electrical system. She also said that some rooms had no electricity, were damp and had mould. The landlord did not respond. Its lack of action meant it had not considered the potential risks or satisfied itself whether the property was habitable. This was also not in keeping with its damp and mould policy which says that following a report of such issues, it will establish if an immediate repair is required and arrange an assessment within 20 working days.
- The landlord has not provided any records confirming what steps it took to resolve the leak. The resident told us it continued to drip for some time after March 2025 before it stopped fully. There is no evidence the landlord updated her until 25 July 2025, when it noted it had confirmed with her that the leak was fixed and there were no further signs of problems.
- When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- At stage 2 the landlord arranged to reinstate the lights, which it completed on 18 August 2025. However, it did not address the resident’s reports of water damage, damp, or mould. It therefore had not fully put things right during its internal complaint procedure. We understand the landlord inspected the property in September 2025, and the resident has confirmed further works are scheduled for February 2026. The exact scope of these works is unclear.
- The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its lack of communication and for delays in completing repairs. It offered the resident £80 for failing to recognise the impact of vulnerabilities, although it also told us it was not aware of any vulnerabilities. In any case, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the impact of the failings identified by our investigation. It did not reflect that the resident was without lights in several rooms for almost 8 months, and it did not address its lack of action in response to her reports of water damage, damp and mould.
- Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience its failings have likely caused the resident. This is an increase of £420 and in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there were failures which adversely affected the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to complete the outstanding works.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaints Handling Code published in April 2024 (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
- The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 within the timescales set out in its policy and upheld the complaint. However, it did not clearly explain the reasons for its decision. Instead, it only restated what it had done and the next steps it planned to take. This was not in line with the requirements of the Code, which requires landlords to address all points within the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for their decisions, referring to relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
- The resident contacted the landlord’s complaints team several times after its stage 1 response. In her email of 21 January 2025 she asked the landlord to outline the complaint stages and “guide it to the right place”, and she also indicated she was dissatisfied. While it was not entirely clear whether she was requesting escalation, she did ask about the complaint stages, and the landlord failed to respond. This was unreasonable.
- On 19 March 2025 the resident clearly asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord failed to do so. It did not issue its stage 2 response until 28 July 2025, and only after our intervention. This was almost 70 working days outside its 20‑working‑day policy timescale.
- The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about water damage, damp and mould. In its submission to us, it said this was because the resident had not raised these issues in her original complaint. However, the resident had reported damp and mould as a direct consequence of the leaks. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to address this to ensure it could fully put things right. Alternatively, if it considered these issues to be a separate complaint, it should have made this clear to the resident. There is no evidence it did so.
- At stage 2 the landlord apologised for its lack of communication and offered £60 compensation for failures in its complaint handling. We do not consider this amount proportionate to the impact of the failings identified. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused.
Learning
- Landlords should ensure repairs are actively managed from the original report through to resolution. Where the source of an issue, such as a leak, is located in a neighbouring leasehold property, the landlord is still expected to take reasonable steps to progress the repair. When residents raise additional issues during this period, the landlord should ensure these are investigated. Had the landlord done so in this case, it could have reduced the delays and impact on the resident.
- The complaints process is an opportunity for landlords to review their handling of a matter and put things right. The landlord did not use this process effectively in this case.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s records lacked sufficient detail about the actions it took to resolve the leaks. As a result, it was not possible to establish whether it had taken appropriate steps.
Communication
- Landlords should provide timely updates to residents during repairs and complaint investigations. This is particularly important where delays occur, as regular communication can help reduce additional distress.