London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202517130)

Background

1. The resident suffers Emotional Processing Disorder (EPD) which affects her ability to manage stress.  The landlord recorded the resident vulnerabilities in 2024 and updated its records in July 2025. The resident reported a leak from a pipe in the kitchen in June 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs after a burst pipe.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs after a burst pipe.
5. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs after a burst pipe

6. The landlord did not meet its policy timescales for completing repairs. It did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in its service adjustments. It did not consider the impact of the excessive delays on the resident. Delays in repairs were excessive and avoidable.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

7. The landlord responded to the complaint at all stages within its complaint policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code timescales. It took some appropriate action to address the complaint but did not fully consider the impact on the resident when assessing compensation.

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.

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

8. The resident said the condition of her property had a negative effect on her mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

9. On the evening of 22 June 2025, the resident reported a leak in her kitchen. She turned off the stopcock to stop the leak, which left her without water. She asked the landlord to contact her the next day.
10. On 23 June 2025, the resident contacted the landlord several times due to no response to her reported leak. The lack of response caused the resident avoidable distress. The landlord later raised an emergency repair and attended the same day. The landlord’s repair policy says it will attend emergency works within 24 hours. This was in line with emergency repair timescales.
11. The landlord found a burst pipe behind the kitchen unit and isolated the supply. It provided the resident with bottled water. It repaired the pipe on 24 June 2025 and provided a dehumidifier to dry the walls. It raised follow-on works for 9 July 2025 to remove floorboards.  The landlord’s repair policy sets no timescales for follow-on works after emergency repairs, except for out of hours works. However, it says routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
12. On 8 July 2025, the landlord raised a job for a mould wash of the kitchen walls. However, the contractor did not contact the resident to book the works until 29 August 2025, 38 working days later. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says where there are concerns around damp and mould it will arrange an assessment of the property within 20 working days and any further remedial repairs will be raised within 10 working days. This was a failure to meet policy timescales. The appointment was then incorrectly cancelled due to confusion over which contractors were being used, which led to further delays.
13. On 9 July 2025, when starting the flooring works, the landlord had concerns there may be asbestos in the floor. The landlord’s asbestos policy says it will carry out a survey where it believes asbestos may be present. It arranged for an asbestos survey to be completed. This was in line with its policy.
14. The landlord’s asbestos policy says it will follow the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. These require a prompt and proportionate investigation when there is a potential asbestos risk. The landlord completed the asbestos survey on 11 July 2025. No asbestos was found and the resident was told the findings on 15 July. This was prompt intervention by the landlord to investigate the asbestos concerns and in line with legal requirements.  By informing the resident quickly, the landlord took reasonable steps to reduce any distress or anxiety caused by concerns about asbestos in her home.
15. On 15 July 2025, the landlord booked the flooring works to be completed on 11 August 2025. The resident was unhappy with this date. She told the landlord she had removed the kitchen base units, fridge freezer and part of the worktops so the flooring works could be completed. These had been placed in the garden, and she was concerned they could be damaged by poor weather. She told the landlord that the situation was affecting her mental health and her disability. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will adjust its service standards or repair timeframes where a delay would put the resident at increased risk because of any disability. There is no evidence the landlord applied this policy.
16. On 27 July 2025 the resident expressed her frustration at the delays in the repairs. She said she was unable to use the kitchen, she was eating takeaways and it was having a huge impact on her mental health. Notes show the landlord completed a vulnerability check on 31 July 2025 but there is no evidence of any further adjustments or follow-up actions.
17. On 11 August 2025, the landlord attended for the flooring repairs but did not complete the works. The resident reported poor contractor conduct and was not happy with the lack of care and empathy shown. The landlord arranged for a supervisor to visit on 14 August 2025, showing it took the concerns seriously and looked to resolve the issue promptly. 
18. On 14 August 2025, the supervisor produced a full schedule of remedial works including renewing the kitchen floor and re-instating the kitchen. This was booked for 15 and 16 September 2025. This was 59 working days after it first raised flooring works and outside repair timescales.
19. The works were not completed in September 2025. This was because the mould wash was incorrectly cancelled, which delayed follow-on works. The resident also contacted solicitors to pursue a disrepair claim. This caused further delays while independent surveys assessed the damage. The resident told us the repairs were finally completed in February 2026. This was over 8 months after the leak was first reported. This was an excessive delay and outside repair policy timescales.
20. When investigating a complaint, we apply our Dispute Resolution principles. These are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We must consider whether there was a failing by the landlord and did this lead to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If yes, we will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. When failings are identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case.
21. The landlord tried to put things right. It apologised for the length of time it had taken for the works to be resolved. In its stage 2 response it provided insurance details for the resident to pursue a claim for damage to her possessions and the impact on her health. It agreed to replace any kitchen units damaged by being outside whilst the works were waiting to be completed. It booked follow-on works. It offered £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
22. This did not go far enough. The landlord did not address the impact of the disrepair on the resident within its complaint procedure. It did not recognise the excessive delay in repairs left the resident without a functioning kitchen for an extended period. It did not meet repair policy timescales. The compensation offer did not reflect the full loss of facilities.
23. On 14 April 2026, as part of ongoing negotiations to settle the case before any court proceedings, the landlord offered £3,172.41 compensation. This was to recognise the loss of use of the kitchen whilst the works were outstanding and compensation for the damaged fridge freezer. This offer was not made within the landlord’s formal complaint responses and therefore we are unable to consider this as reasonable redress.
24. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs following the burst pipe. The resident informs us she has settled the disrepair claim. We have made an order of compensation in line with the settlement figure.

25. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 sets out how and when landlords should respond to complaints. The Code says landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively from the date of acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaints policy follows these timescales. The landlord’s definition of a complaint is also compliant with the Code.
26. The resident made her complaint on 23 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint, and issued its stage 1 response, on 26 June 2025, within policy timescales. It raised follow-on works and apologised that the resident needed to raise a complaint to have her repairs resolved.
27. On 27 July 2025, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on 29 July 2025 and issued its stage 2 response on 26 August 2025. All responses were within policy and the Code timescales.
28. In its stage 2 response, the landlord addressed the issues raised. It booked further works to the flooring and kitchen and arranged for a supervisor to visit to confirm completion. It provided insurance details so the resident could pursue any personal injury or damaged belongings claim. It offered compensation of £350 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the delays in completing the repairs.
29. While the landlord acted in line with its complaint process and took steps to put the matter right, it did not fully consider the impact on the resident. It did not consider the loss of use of her facilities when calculating compensation. The landlord also did not show learning from the complaint with delays in repairs after both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
30. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made no compensation awards as the failings were compensated in our investigation into the substantive issue.

Learning

31. The landlord responded within emergency repair timescales when dealing with the initial burst pipe. However, the landlord should ensure consistent repair management when follow-on works are also required.
32. The landlord should ensure that compensation reflects the full circumstances of the case and the impact on the resident. This should include any loss of facilities.
33. The landlord acted appropriately in arranging an asbestos survey. Completing the survey promptly and communicating the outcome quickly to the resident reduced her anxiety and showed good practice.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. There was a significant delay in the resident being contacted for the mould wash and the confusion over which contractor was responsible meant several follow-on works were delayed. Landlords should maintain clear, accurate and up-to date repair records and regularly review these to identify delays or lack of contractor action.

Communication

35. The resident had to chase for updates on her repairs. Clear and timely communication helps residents understand how their repairs are being handled and prevents uncertainty.