London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202517536)

Decision
Case ID	202517536
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 January 2026

Background

1. The resident experienced boiler breakdowns for several years. She expressed dissatisfaction at the frequency of these and the effectiveness of the landlord’s repairs. The landlord was aware the resident had vulnerabilities on account of her age. The resident has reported she still experiences boiler breakdowns which appear to be related to low boiler pressure.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of boiler repairs

5. While the landlord attended to reports of boiler faults between 2024 and 2025 in line with its repairs policy it left the resident without heating and hot water for 12 days over winter. It failed to show that it had fully assessed the resident’s boiler as it promised in its stage 2 complaint response and the compensation it offered did not fully remedy the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at both stages within the timescales set out in its complaint policy . While its stage 2 complaint response contained an inaccuracy, the landlord apologised for this, corrected it, and paid the resident proportionate 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of boiler repairs (this replaces the £142.12 previously sent by cheque and uncashed).   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 16 February 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident via her granddaughter to arrange an inspection of the resident’s boiler. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent heating surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required.   If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the boiler no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the resident’s boiler and heating system and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards on account of excess cold (any heating system defects) The most likely cause of any boiler faults, including a loss of water or pressure If any faults are found whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve these together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if there are faults for which the landlord is responsible) or whether a new boiler is needed The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary during any recommended works	No later than 16 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 February 2025	The resident’s granddaughter complained to the landlord on behalf of the resident of “chronic boiler problems for years” and said the landlord had failed to complete an effective repair. She said the boiler was prone to breakdowns without warning which left the resident cold, without hot water and having to use electric heaters. In addition, she said the landlord had not considered the resident’s vulnerabilities which meant she was unable to adjust the boiler. The resident’s granddaughter requested a replacement boiler.
6 March 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response and said: It attended the property following reports of issues with the boiler between 12 June 2024 and 27 December 2024, and between 25 January 2025 and 30 January 2025, within its policy timescales It raised a job on 10 January 2025 for a boiler leak, but it did not attend until 13 January 2025, so it awarded compensation of £30 Although it attended on 30 January 2025 it could not find the mains stop cock to replace a filling loop until 10 February 2025 It offered the resident £142.12 made up of £48 for loss of hot water and heating for 12 days, £40 for inconvenience, and £54.12 for reimbursement for heaters for 12 days It agreed to discuss the contractor’s performance with them
6 March 2025	The resident’s granddaughter escalated the complaint and said the landlord had not replaced the boiler and that residents should not need to top up boilers so regularly with water
3 April 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response and said: It attended the resident’s property to deal with the boiler on 12 June 2024, 13 June 2024, 21 June 2024, 18 December 2024, 27 December 2024, 25 January 2025, and 27 January 2025 It also attended on 9 July 2024 after it raised a job the day before It failed to attend on 11 January 2025 after it raised a job the day before,  and had agreed to pay a £30 missed appointment fee and attended on 13 January 2025 It attended on 30 January 2025 to fit a filling loop after it raised a job on 28 January 2025, but as it could not locate the mains stopcock it was unable to complete this job until 10 February 2025 It apologised for the length of time the repair took and the contradictory information it provided It accepted that staff should have been more effective and the communication should have been better It confirmed the compensation it offered at stage 1 (£142.12) It upheld the complaint and awarded the resident a further £440 made up of £320 for distress and inconvenience, £100 for time and effort, and £20 for complaint handling (£582.12 in total) It agreed to send a senior operative to fully assess the boiler system, including the filling loop and added that its gas operational manager would oversee the complaint and review of the boiler system It said the resident could contact the neighbourhood housing lead for any help, and it set up a password to enable the landlord to access the resident’s property for repairs
9 April 2025	The resident’s granddaughter complained about the accuracy of the stage 2 complaint response and requested a revised complaint response.
11 April 2025	The landlord sent a revised stage 2 response. Its findings remained unchanged, but it offered an additional £20 for complaint handling (£602.12 in total, made up of £142.12 offered at stage 1 and £460 at stage 2 of its complaint process).
20 June 2025	The landlord offered an additional £20 compensation as it had not sent out a compensation cheque for £460, but agreed to send this in 10 working days.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident’s granddaughter referred the complaint to us as a representative. She said that the boiler continued to breakdown after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and the landlord had not sent a senior operative to fully assess the boiler. The resident did not cash the compensation cheque of £142.12 from the stage 1 complaint response. The resident has cashed the compensation cheque the landlord sent for £460. The representative said she wanted the landlord to independently assess the boiler, provide a new boiler, and offer more 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 handling of boiler repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

7. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising, so that landlords can consider them while they are still “live” and the evidence is available to properly investigate (reflected in the wording of our Scheme).The resident’s representative stated that the complaint is about “chronic boiler problems for years”. In view of the time periods involved in this case this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to February 2024, which is 12 months before the resident’s complaint. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in February 2025.

What we have investigated

8. We have considered the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs up to its final response on 11 April 2025, including any commitments it made in this. The resident’s tenancy agreement placed responsibility on the landlord for keeping the boiler in good working order. It attended the resident’s property to deal with reports of a boiler fault within 24 hours of the report on 12 June 2024, 13 June 2024, 20 June 2024, 8 July 2024, 18 December 2024, 26 December 2024, 25 January 2025, and 26 January 2025. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s repair policy for dealing with emergencies, which includes heating and water loss under the resident’s tenancy agreement. During the complaint process the landlord acknowledged that it failed to attend the appointment it made on 9 January 2025 within the 24-hour timeframe, instead it attended on 13 January 2025.
9. When the landlord attended on 27 January 2025 it identified the boiler filling loop was faulty and it ordered a new one and  attended again on 30 January 2025. While this was reasonable it was unable to fit the loop until 10 February 2025 as it could not locate a mains stop cock, which was a failing. The landlord did not attend the appointment it made for 7 February 2025, and  left the resident without full heating and hot water for 12 days (30 January 2025 to 10 February 2025) during the winter.
10. The landlord raised a job on 3 April 2025 concerning the external filling loop. The landlord’s repair records show that it needed to complete this job by 10 April 2025, but it cancelled it on 7 April 2025 as it said it had raised the job in error. It raised a new job on 11 April 2025 for a boiler leak and drop in boiler pressure. However, it told the resident’s granddaughter on 15 April 2025 that the planner was not aware of the background, and it needed to re-attend to assess the boiler. The landlord has not provided evidence it completed this and so we cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably.
11. Our dispute resolution principles state that when a landlord identifies failures it should act fairly, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the delays in completing the boiler repairs. It attempted to put things right by offering the resident £562.12 compensation for these failures. However, the landlord noted that by 20 June 2025 it had only sent the resident £142.12, and it offered an additional £20 for the delay (£582.12 in total for the substantive issue). It was reasonable of the landlord to increase its offer of compensation to reflect the delay in it providing compensation for the substantive issue.
12. We note that £142.12 of the compensation the landlord offered the resident is outstanding because the resident decided not to cash the cheque it sent. We understand from the landlord that this cheque has now been cancelled.
13. While the landlord promised to send a senior operative to fully assess the boiler in its stage 2 complaint response the landlord has not shown it completed this and put things right. It has not provided the resident or us with a detailed report.
14. The landlord received no less than 86 reports of a boiler breakdown between September 2006 and January 2024, averaging 5 times per year. While an assessment of this is outside the scope of this investigation it is relevant as context. Given the frequency of boiler breakdowns it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed a comprehensive assessment of the boiler when a pattern of breakdowns emerged. As it has failed to do this we have made an order for it to complete this using an independent surveyor.
15. The landlord has also not demonstrated any learning from its failings in handling the boiler repairs.
16. The landlord’s failure to complete a “full assessment of the boiler system, including filling loop” by a senior operative in line with its stage 2 complaint response likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £300 (which replaces the outstanding £142.12) to reflect the additional distress and inconvenience the landlord’s failure likely had on the resident, exacerbated by her vulnerabilities. This award is in line with our remedies guidance where we have found a failure which adversely affected a resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

17. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2024), referred to as “the Code”. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
18. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process in line with its complaint’s policy (within 10 working days). It also provided the resident with its first stage 2 complaint response in line with its complaint policy (within 20 working days). The resident’s granddaughter told the landlord on 9 April 2025 that its stage 2 complaint response wrongly referred to the resident as having dementia which caused the resident upset. It apologised to the resident for this, it promptly sent a new amended response, and awarded the resident £40 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its error. Its response was reasonable and in line with our dispute resolution principles, act fairly and put things right, to resolve the complaint satisfactorily. The compensation amount of £40 was proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance for situations such as this where the landlord’s failing was of short duration, and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident

Learning

19. While the landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory it failed to show that it communicated effectively with the resident post complaint. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs (March 2019) contains useful guidance to landlords on handling boiler repairs in section 2. Our spotlight report on complaints about heating, hot water, and energy (February 2021) also recommends landlords use robust contracts, monitoring and customer feedback when evaluating the performance of contractors and future procurement.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. Overall, the landlord’s repair records were satisfactory.

Communication

21. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 complaint response that its communication was lacking but it also failed to communicate effectively post complaint about the promised assessment of the resident’s boiler.