London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202520268)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat and experienced leaks in his property from the flat above. He complained to the landlord because he was unhappy with its communication and its delay in resolving the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak in his bedroom.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in his bedroom.
   2. No maladministration 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 the resident’s reports of a leak in his bedroom

4. The landlord did not complete the repair in line with its policy timescales. Its record keeping was poor.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its complaints policy timescale. It sent its stage 2 response 3 working days late, but this delay did not cause any significant impact.

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.

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

6. The resident said the repair delays, and the condition of the property, impacted his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. 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.
7. Before this complaint, the resident made 3 complaints to the landlord. He first complained in July 2024 about a leak and related repairs to his bathroom and kitchen, which was settled at stage 1 and he accepted compensation. He did not escalate this complaint or bring it to us, and we have not investigated the issues in that complaint. While there is some overlap in repairs, any reference to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom repairs in this report is for context and information purposes.
8. The landlord issued a final response on 4 April 2025 to another complaint. If the resident remains unhappy with its final response, he can ask us to investigate further. Under our Scheme, we normally expect residents to bring a complaint to us within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. We have not investigated the issues from that complaint. This investigation focuses on the complaint the resident made on 23 April 2025 about his bedroom leak for which he received a final complaint response on 12 June 2025.
9. The resident is unhappy with the work completed by the landlord. He has experienced issues with his kitchen and another leak in his bedroom and hallway. If he is unhappy, he can make a new complaint and escalate it to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure if he is not satisfied. If he remains unhappy with its final response, he can ask us to investigate further. We have not investigated the new complaint issues.
10. The resident brought another complaint to us in August 2025 about a leak and kitchen replacement which was being dealt with under our reference 202520079. He has not provided the information which was requested, and it is closed. He can contact us and request for it to be reopened if he wants to pursue this.

What we did investigate

11. On 28 November 2024 the resident reported water was leaking from his bedroom ceiling. He said the water went into his lightbulb and caused his bedroom ceiling to bow from the damp. In line with its repairs policy timescale, the landlord attended the same day to make the light safe. It said it inspected the flat above and fixed the leak. Its records do not show what work it raised for the resident’s bedroom ceiling.
12. Between December 2024 and February 2025, the resident remained in contact with the landlord about outstanding work to his kitchen and bathroom from a previous leak. He reported a toilet leak in January 2025 and raised a complaint on 9 February 2025 about another leak from the flat above which affected his electricity.
13. On 12 February 2025, the resident emailed the landlord and asked what it would do to repair the ceiling and walls in his bedroom. He said the leak started in December 2024 and was still ongoing. The landlord replied on 14 February 2025 and said it attended but he was not home. It explained it could not confirm if the leak was because of a blocked downpipe or roofing issues. It confirmed it raised work to investigate, which was scheduled for April 2025, but would bring forward if it could. It said it would start internal work once it resolved the leak.
14. The resident complained in April 2025 because he said the leak from November 2024 was ongoing and the repairs were outstanding. The landlord told us this was a new leak and was not a continuation of the initial bedroom leak, but its records are not clear. In its stage 1 response, it provided the resident with job references for its roof inspection and water detection test. Neither of these are recorded on the resident’s repair records. Its records confirm it raised a job for a dye test on 23 May 2025 to investigate the cause of the water ingress into the resident’s bedroom. It marked the job complete on 17 June 2025 but did not record what the outcome was.
15. The landlord completed the roof repair and remedial work to the resident’s bedroom in June 2025, while the resident was temporarily re-housed. There were delays in the landlord resolving the leak and completing work. There were access issues, delays with scaffolding and disagreements between the landlord and the resident about the planned work. The resident was in regular contact with the landlord and sent a high volume of correspondence and evidence which included videos and photos of its contractors working. Its internal communication shows the resident’s internal cameras caused constraints and the contractors required amended work orders.
16. The resident’s communication may have caused the landlord challenges and it attempted to update him when it could, but its communication could have been better. It sent communication to him in the wrong name and left out contact details for the point of contact in its stage 2 response. It attended when the resident had told the landlord he was not available and its contractor recorded no answer on a repair visit when the resident was rehoused and had provided it with the key safe code. In its stage 2 response it said it would review any compensation once it completed all work. Its internal communications from July and November 2025 show it was reviewing the resident’s compensation request, but it has not got back to him.
17. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s leak report and repair was poor. It did not act with urgency to complete the repair in line with its repairs policy timescale which says it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days and those with additional complexity, within 40 working days. Its compensation policy also details its right to repair obligations with the prescribed period for a leaking roof as 7 working days.
18. The resident told the landlord the leak caused his ceiling to bow and he said the damp prevented him from sleeping in his bedroom. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it would arrange a visit within 20 working days to find the cause and provide guidance on managing the mould. It would then raise repairs within 10 working days. We have not seen evidence it acted in accordance with its policy on receipt of the reports. It is unclear what it did, and when, to resolve any damp and mould.
19. In view of the landlord’s delay and poor communication we found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation which is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected the resident. This amount is separate to the resident’s compensation request to the landlord which covers different periods and issues not part of this complaint. We recommend the landlord reviews the resident’s request and responds. We also recommend it provides him with details of how to make a claim to its liability insurer for any damage to his personal items.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. This is in line with our complaint handling code (the Code).
21. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in accordance with its complaints policy.
22. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 23 working days after the resident’s escalation.  This was not in line with its policy. However, the 3-working day delay was unlikely to have significantly impacted the resident or affected the overall outcome,
23. In view of the above, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

24. The landlord should learn from this case and ensure it is following its policy timescales for repairs. It should review our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance.
25. The landlord continued to engage and sought to progress the complaint and repair despite some  communication challenges, which was positive.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s repair records were poor with repair entries missing. The records available show when it raised a repair and why but do not confirm what work it did or when. It should ensure its repair records are accurate and complete.

Communication

27. The landlord should consider how it can improve its repair updates with residents by giving clear, timely, and proactive updates. It should also consider how it communicates with contractors and ensure they are aware of access arrangements.