London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202507822)

Background

1. The resident’s boiler was turned off by a contractor as it had failed a safety check. The landlord was aware that the resident has a number of physical health issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the boiler was not working.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the boiler was not working.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not respond to the initial report from the contractor that the boiler had been switched off. This was not in line with its repairs policy. The landlord unreasonably failed to consider its safeguarding of adults policy and whether the policy could apply in the circumstances.
7. The landlord’s handling of the stage 2 complaint took longer than the timeframe stated in its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s 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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

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 have not investigated

8. The resident believes that his health has been affected by the boiler not working. We do not investigate complaints where it would be fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through a court. In this case, we cannot make a determination as to whether the boiler not working impacted the resident’s health. This is a matter only a court has the ability to decide upon. For these reasons, we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about the impact of the boiler not working on his health.

What we have investigated

9. The resident’s boiler failed a safety check and was therefore disconnected by a contractor on 4 March 2025. Due to this, the resident did not have access to heating or hot water.
10. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that a total loss of heating and hot water, at this time of year, would be classed as an emergency repair. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours. The policy explains that if an issue cannot be fixed, it will attend within 24 hours to make safe. It will then complete the repair at the earliest opportunity.
11. We have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord took any action in response to the resident having no heating or hot water until the resident chased the work on 18 March 2025. That day, the landlord raised an emergency 24 hour repair and provided the resident with temporary heaters. This action was reasonable, however the landlord had failed to respond in this way when the boiler had initially been disconnected.
12. Due to the delay in the landlord providing temporary heaters, the resident had been without any form of heating from 4 to 18 March 2025. Given the resident’s known health conditions, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had considered his vulnerabilities in the circumstances. The landlord provided no explanation for its initial delay in responding.
13. A contractor attended the property the following day. They subsequently told the landlord the work would be difficult to carry out due to amount of possessions at the property and the distance from the gas meter to the appliances. The contractor referred this to its internal installation team for further advice.
14. The contractor’s installation team inspected the property on 26 March 2025. They advised the landlord they could not carry out the work due to the amount of belongings in the property and the associated health and safety concerns. We have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord took any action to discuss this finding with the resident. This was a failing.
15. The landlord’s safeguarding adults policy says that hoarding can be sign of self-neglect. It sets out that it will respond to potential concerns in a resident-led manner and it will follow a resident’s wishes unless certain circumstances applied. The policy says the landlord will report any possible neglect within three working days. If a situation does not meet the threshold for a safeguarding referral, it may share its concerns with relevant agencies.
16. The landlord had been made aware by its contractor that the amount of possessions in the property prevented the repair and were a health and safety concern. Despite this, we have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord considered at the time if this could indicate possible hoarding.
17. Despite being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered the situation in line with its safeguarding adults policy. This was a missed opportunity to understand the resident’s situation, inspect the property itself and offer support to the resident, to ensure the work could be carried out.
18. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged its contractor had attended 6 days outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timeframe. It is not clear from the evidence provided if this delay referred to the boiler initially being disconnected or for the follow-up appointment by the installations team.
19. We have seen that following the resident’s escalation of the complaint, the landlord’s repairs record showed the job as having been completed. It is not clear why this had been recorded in this was as the job had not been completed. As such, the landlord’s repairs record was not an accurate reflection of the circumstances. This also prevented its frontline staff from being aware of the current status of the situation.
20. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 3 June 2025 that he had cleared the area. The landlord relied on what the resident had said and asked the contractor to complete the work within 24 hours. The contractor attended within this timeframe but could not carry out the work as parts were required. We have not seen any evidence that the contractor had identified an issue with the condition of the property during this visit.
21. The landlord explained to the resident within its stage 2 response that parts were on order and it would monitor the completion of the job. This was an accurate reflection of what the landlord had been told by the contractor. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the communication from the contractor, that the only barrier to the work being completed at this stage was waiting for the delivery of the parts.
22. Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord carried out a welfare check at the resident’s property. This confirmed the area was not clear. The resident disputed this and believed the property was clear enough for the work to go ahead. In response to this the landlord referred the resident to its support service despite him saying he did not need help to clear the property.
23. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
24. At the time of this investigation, we have not been provided with any evidence that the boiler has been repaired. The landlord took some steps to assist the resident and it supplied temporary heaters, however the resident was without any hot water from March 2025. Some of the circumstances were outside of the landlord’s control, such as parts needing to be ordered and the resident’s reluctance to have help clearing the property. However, the landlord could have done more at an earlier stage to offer support in clearing the property and to consider whether there were wider safeguarding issues. 
25. The landlord identified a failure in its contractor attending six days late and offered £60 compensation. In addition, we have identified other failures as follows:
    1. The landlord did not raise a job for the boiler until 13 days after it had been switched off. This was in response to the resident chasing the work.
    2. The landlord was aware of the number of personal possessions in the property and that this would impact the ability to carry out work. It was not responsive to this concern raised by the contractor and did not consider the resident’s vulnerability.
    3. Its repairs records inaccurately showed the job as completed.
26. Given the effect of the combined failures, the compensation offered was not sufficient to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This leads to a determination of maladministration.
27. To acknowledge the effect on the resident we have ordered an additional £400 compensation. This brings the total compensation to £460. This is within a range recommended by our remedies guidance when the landlord made some attempt to put things right, but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

28. The landlord’s complaints policy says at stage 1, it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It then aims to respond at stage 1 in 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond in 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. This mirrors the Code.
29. The landlord sent its stage 1 response within its published timeframe. Its stage 2 response took 23 working days from the date of the escalation request. This was 3 days over its stated timeframe. We have seen that the landlord’s acknowledgment of the escalation said it would respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code. This appeared to be a standard email response to an escalation request.
30. As the landlord’s handling of the stage 2 complaint was delayed and the standard text sent within its acknowledgment was not in line with its complaints policy and the Code, we have found service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s record keeping was not accurate and it incorrectly recorded the boiler work as having been completed. The landlord should ensure that works are not marked as complete when they are still outstanding.

Communication

32. The landlord could have been more proactive in its communication with the resident particularly in light of how the situation was affecting him. The landlord should ensure that standard text used in emails during its internal complaints process accurately reflect its complaints policy and the Code.