London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202502221)

Decision
Case ID	202502221
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom second floor flat. She has a tenancy which started in December 2021 and became an assured tenancy after 12 months. The resident complained to the landlord about water leaking through her bedroom window. She told the landlord this caused damage to her carpet.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of a window water leak.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a window water leak.
   2. There was service failure 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 a window water leak

4. The landlord did not respond to the initial report of a window water leak, or complete external brickwork in line with the time limits within its responsive repairs policy. It also has not provided evidence of the attendances it said it made on 15 February 2024, 13 May 2024, and 8 July 2024. It has not demonstrated that it acted reasonably following its final complaint response to resolve the ongoing window water leak.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. Although the landlord paid compensation at stage 2 of its complaint process to acknowledge the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling it failed to show it tracked, actioned, and updated the resident on the outstanding actions in line with the expectations in our Complaint Handling Code (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	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes this by the due date. The landlord should ask a surveyor who has experience of windows to complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property, no later than the due date. The landlord must ensure the surveyor: Inspects the windows and produces a written report explaining the most likely cause of the window water leak Explains if the landlord is responsible for any repair or defect identified with reasons where it is not responsible   Provides a full scope of the works needed to remedy any defect or to achieve a lasting and effective repair States the likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 14 November 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up of:   £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in responding to the resident’s report of a window water leak. £50 to recognise the distress caused by its complaint handling. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 14 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 January 2024	The landlord’s repair records note water coming through the window seal in the resident’s bedroom.
11 April 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about its response to the leak which she said left her carpet wet, and her having to use towels. She also mentioned a previous leak affecting her balcony door.
12 April 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process and upheld the complaint. It said it raised a job on 23 January 2024 and attended on 15 February 2024, and 1 March 2024. Its contractors told it that the windowsill was damaged, and the mastic (sealant) had split causing water ingress. It added that its contractor had difficulties in sourcing parts to complete the repair. The landlord said the resident needed to make a claim for any damage to her carpet on her home insurance. Alternatively, it explained to the resident she could write to its insurer if she felt the landlord was responsible and in the absence of home contents insurance. It said it could not investigate the balcony door leak as the resident raised this after 12 months of the landlord logging the complaint. It agreed to reassess the resident’s case for compensation after it sourced the parts, and it had scheduled the repair.
21 July 2024 to 15 January 2025	Between 21 July 2024 and 20 December 2024 the landlord attended the property a number of times to repair the window. It offered the resident compensation of £225 on 15 January 2025 (made up of £175 for failing to recognise the effect on the resident and £50 for time and trouble). The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the level of compensation. She said the landlord had failed to resolve the leak and its contractors lacked knowledge of the repair history. The landlord agreed to assess the external brickwork after concluding the window was in good condition.
24 January 2025	The resident told the landlord she had not received a report or findings from the work completed yesterday and water was coming in from 3 places. The resident escalated her complaint.
04 February 2025	The landlord increased its offer to £275 (£75 more than its first offer), made up of £175 for inconvenience and not recognising the effect, £50 for poor complaint handling and £50 for effort.
20 March 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response and upheld the complaint. It said it explained the reasons for the delays in its stage 1 response and confirmed the leak was caused by a failure in the sealant around the external windows. It accepted there was a delay and said this was partly due to the uncertainty of whether the work would fall under a warranty. It said it had requested a “desk top referral” to minor works and asked its contractor to send over all completion reports.   It awarded £650 made up of £600 for the distress and inconvenience in the repair work to the bedroom window between January 2024 and April 2025 and £50 for the time and effort. It said it advised about the next steps regarding carpet damage. It accepted there were delays in dealing with the balcony repair and offered £150 for this. It agreed to inspect the windows.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she had received the compensation the landlord offered, and the landlord recently attended the property but her window still leaks. The resident wants the landlord to provide a clear timeline for when it will complete work or how it intends to address the windows as a structural fault. The resident would also like additional 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 response to the resident’s reports of a window water leak.
Finding	Maladministration

6. The landlord is responsible for the exterior and structure of the resident’s property under both the resident’s tenancy agreement and its responsive repairs policy. This includes windows and brickwork. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it must deal with routine repairs within 20 calendar days.
7. The landlord responded to the resident’s report of a water leak within 27 calendar days (23 January 2024 to 20 February 2024), this was significantly outside the timescales in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy. Its contractor explained following this attendance that the external window mastic had failed. While it said it attended the resident’s property on 15 February 2024 the landlord has not provided us with evidence of this. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably. However, it said it had to instruct another contractor after this which was unable to complete the follow-on work because it needed a windowsill cover. It was appropriate of the landlord to update the resident 3 times between 13 May 2024 and 12 June 2024. It explained in its communications with the resident the reason for the delays.
8. While this issue was outside the control of the landlord, we note it told the contractor it would repost the job on 3 June 2024 if it was unable to source the parts by then. However, the landlord did not  repost the job until 1 July 2024, 20 working days after it said it would. It is also unclear what happened at the appointment the landlord said its contractor booked for 13 May 2024.
9. The landlord told the resident that it attended on 8 July 2024, but it has not provided evidence of this. We can see from the emails between the landlord and resident on 21 July 2024 that it attended on this day and decided the windows needed resealing. The landlord explained to the resident the reason it would no longer offer a replacement windowsill. While this was frustrating to the resident the landlord’s explanation was reasonable as differences in professional opinion between contractors on the work needed is common. The landlord renewed the sealant on 14 August 2025. This was 24 calendar days later which was 4 days over the timescale in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy for completing routine repairs. This was a short delay and there is no evidence this caused the resident detriment.
10. After 14 August 2024 the resident did not report the window leak again until 27 November 2024. The landlord raised a job for this on 3 December 2024 and attended on 17 December 2024. This was within 20 calendar days of the resident’s report which was in line with its responsive repairs policy. As its contractor identified on 17 December 2024 that the windows were in good condition it was reasonable of the landlord to raise a job to assess the external brickwork. This is because water can enter properties through gaps in this. The landlord attended on 23 January 2025 and completed repointing work to the brickwork on 27 January 2025. This was 37 and 41 calendar days respectively from when the landlord visited in December 2024 and said it would assess the brickwork. This was outside the timescale in the responsive repairs policy to deal with routine repairs.
11. The landlord told the resident on 3 February 2025 that its surveyor would be in contact with her about the windows after it noted its contractor said they had not been installed correctly. This was a reasonable response to this report. We also note that the landlord told the resident in its stage 2 response that it would inspect the windows. The resident has said that while the landlord attended it has not addressed the window fault and her window still leaks. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show what inspection or action the landlord took following its final response, we cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably and resolved the complaint. The landlord noted its contractors were not always aware of the repair history, this led to the contractors not always attending with equipment and contributed to delays. These failures amounted to maladministration.
12. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. When considering this we will have regard to whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
13. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the delays in it completing window repairs, explaining its reasons, and offering to inspect again when it became aware of ongoing problems. While it was appropriate of it to offer and pay compensation to acknowledge the likely distress and inconvenience its failures caused, we have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation. This is to reflect the fact that the landlord only calculated compensation for the windows (£600) up to April 2025.
14. However, the resident still reports a leak, and the landlord has not demonstrated it acted reasonably to resolve this after its final response. Therefore, we have made an additional order of compensation of £200 to cover the likely distress and inconvenience caused by this ongoing issue. This is in line with our remedies guidance which allows for awards of this amount where the resident has been adversely affected by a landlord’s failure and it has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
15. We have also made an order for the landlord to complete a full window inspection.
16. The resident told the landlord her carpet had been damaged by the leak. We note the landlord appropriately informed her she could either make a claim through her own home contents insurance or contact its insurer to make a public liability claim if she did not have this in place. As this is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy the landlord acted reasonably.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

17. The landlord has a 2 staged complaint process in line with the Code. It had to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, within 1 working day. In contrast it took it 39 working days to provide its stage 2 response from the date the resident escalated her complaint (24 January 2025 to 20 March 2025). The landlord should also have tracked and actioned the outstanding action it agreed to in its stage 2 response and importantly update the resident in line with clause 6.17 of the Code.
18. The landlord paid the resident £50 to acknowledge the time and effort this delay caused the resident as part of its stage 2 complaint response referring to this as a payment in relation to the “complaint”. The landlord acted fairly by paying compensation. However, paragraph 7.3 of the Code says that any remedy proposed in a complaint response must be followed through to completion. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it would take action concerning remedying the leak, but it failed to track, action, and update the resident on this. This likely added to the resident’s distress as the landlord left her unclear on what work it would complete and by when. We have therefore made an additional compensation order of £50 to reflect this. This reflects the compensation we can make for a service failure and is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

19. Landlords should keep detailed records of all contacts with residents and attendances; this will help ensure landlords can resolve issues as quickly as possible and provide an audit trail when things go wrong. Landlords should always keep residents informed of repairs through regular updates. Landlords should ensure that their contractors are informed of relevant information before attending, including the repair history.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord did not provide evidence of all the attendances it said it made which has meant it has been unable to show there was an accurate audit trail or that it effectively responded to the reports.

Communication

21. The landlord communicated its reason for the delays in resolving the window repair between January to June 2024, but it failed to follow through on communicating after its final response. This left the resident uncertain on what action the landlord would take. There were also communication issues between the landlord and its contractors which led to its contractors not always attending with appropriate equipment or aware of the repair history.