London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202507884)

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and subsequent floor damage in several rooms. She has vulnerabilities, including back problems, and her husband is physically disabled. The landlord is aware of these circumstances. Her daughter represents her in bringing the complaint to us. For clarity, the report refers to both the resident and her daughter as “the resident.” What the complaint is about.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak and subsequent damage to floors.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damage to floors.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to act in line with its policies. While it offered some redress it failed to acknowledge the impact its delays and poor communication had on the resident.
6. The landlord did not follow its complaints process. It failed to apologise for delays, gave inaccurate information and demonstrated no learning.

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 did not investigate

7. The resident said that the situation caused her stress and harmed her husband’s health. She said he fell due to the damaged flooring. The courts are best placed to deal with these types of disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This indicates a record keeping failure. Our investigation has relied on the available evidence.
9. The resident reported “spongy, springy floors “and a suspected leak to the landlord on 3 September 2024. It attended the same day, in line with its repairs policy which says it will attend emergencies within 24 hours. It confirmed the property was safe, but we saw no evidence that it carried out a risk assessment or took any steps to identify the cause. It told her she would need to remove the floor covering before it could inspect. While its policy says residents are responsible for floor coverings, except in kitchens and bathrooms it failed to consider the household’s vulnerabilities or offer any support to remove the carpet.
10. When the landlord returned 8 days later, the floor covering remained, and it repeated that the resident needed to remove it. She said she was unable to do this and could not afford help. It said it would explore support but there was no indication this happened. She later removed the hallway floor covering herself. She expected a visit the next day, but it had no record of this, showing poor communication.
11. The leak continued leaving the resident with no heating or hot water. The landlord failed to take timely and effective action to address the issue which likely increased the risk of further damage and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident. While it said the leak was repaired it provided no evidence to confirm when this was completed. The lack of clarity is concerning, particularly given the seriousness of the situation. Leaving residents without essential services such as heat and hot water for extended periods is unacceptable and falls below the standard of service a landlord is expected to provide, especially where residents may be vulnerable.
12. After the leak was repaired, the landlord failed to carry out remedial works. The resident reported holes in the floorboards on 2 October 2024. It raised a job to remove the remaining kitchen floor tiles and fit linoleum, in line with its policy. The work did not happen, showing poor repairs management. It raised another job after her complaint. It scheduled the work for January 2025, 3 months after the report but still did not complete the work. She chased in March and April 2025 but there is no evidence it updated her. A healthy homes assessment identified a safety risk, despite this, there was no evidence it took action.
13. On 16 April 2025, 196 days after the residents first report, the landlord removed the remaining kitchen floor tiles and laid hardboard. It said it would raise a follow on job for the linoleum, which she confirmed was completed in May 2025.Itsignificantly exceeded its 25 day response time for general repairs.
14. Following the residents complaint, the landlord told her to claim for the damaged hallway and bedroom floor covering through its insurance. It also said she could make a public liability claim. This was appropriate in the circumstances. There was no communication between the parties for 3 months, she then said she would claim through the landlord’s insurance. She has told us that her claim was refused. Insurance matters fall outside our remit as managing an insurance policy is not a housing activity. However, it should have given this advice earlier and offered support with the process.
15. In March 2025 the landlord said it would consider providing carpet for the hallway and bedroom. It measured the areas and laid hardboard, which the resident said was draughty and hard to clean. It then said it planned to install linoleum, which she was unhappy with and refused. The change in approach showed poor communication and unclear decision making.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 compensation offer included £450 towards flooring costs. The resident was unhappy and submitted her own request, which it declined. In its stage 2 response it increased its total offer.
17. The hallway and bedroom floor coverings have not been replaced. Although the tenancy places this responsibility on the resident, the landlord should have considered the emergency nature of the leak and that its delays likely contributed to the damaged floors and coverings. Its repeated changes in approach likely caused confusion and raised her expectations.
18. The landlord apologised for not considering the household’s vulnerabilities and inconvenience. It offered £550 for the delay, stress, inconvenience and £450 toward flooring costs. While its offer went some way to putting things right for the resident, it was not proportionate to the delays she experienced. It also failed to reflect the confusion caused by its poor communication. We have ordered additional compensation to recognise this.

19. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint and stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. The timescales within the landlord’s complaint policy are in line with the Code.
20. It is unclear why the landlord issued 2 stage 1 responses 101 working days apart. It also put the resident’s escalation request on hold rather than proceeding with its stage 2 response. This was not in line with its policy and prolonged its complaint response timescales.
21. There were also inaccuracies in its complaint responses such as the complaint date and compensation amounts. Landlords must ensure accuracy in complaint responses.
22. In its second stage 1 response, the landlord offered £90 compensation for its complaint handling failures. However, its responses lacked empathy, and it failed to demonstrate any learning We have made an order for additional compensation.

Learning

General learning

23. Landlords must ensure accuracy of information given in complaint responses to avoid confusion.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s lack of evidence made it difficult to assess the timeline of events. Accurate records must be kept and shared during investigations. It should view our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

25. Landlords must maintain clear communication with residents so they are aware of all actions taken and the progression of queries and complaints.