London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202528883)

Background

1. The resident reported to the landlord on 3 March 2025 that the glass of their balcony door and bedroom window had shattered. The property was newly built in 2018 therefore; the defects liability period ended in 2020. The property currently benefits from National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty cover.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about cracked window and door glass.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about cracked window and door glass.
5. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports about cracked window and door glass

6. The landlord took too long to communicate with the resident about who was responsible for the repair especially in consideration of the vulnerabilities in the household. The landlord did not show how it considered all the evidence before deciding the repair was not a latent defect. The landlord has confirmed that it now accepts that the glazing issue is a latent defect. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation is not proportionate to the failings our investigation has identified and the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and procedures.

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.

8. On 3 March 2025 the resident reported that the glass in the balcony door and bedroom window had shattered. The landlord attended on 19 March 2025. As the resident was a leaseholder, the landlord was not automatically responsible for the repair because the lease stated he was responsible for glass in relation to doors and windows. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to attend and inspect the damage to confirm the cause and clarify who was responsible for the repair.
9. During the repair appointment on 19 March 2025, the landlord’s contractor noted that the balcony frame which was connected to the wall was too small causing the glass to break. The lease agreement states the landlord is responsible for ‘any structural parts of the balcony’ including the balcony’s railing and/or walls. As the damage was potentially linked to a structural defect based on the contractor’s notes, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume responsibility for the repair.
10. The landlord subsequently raised a repair on 26 March 2025 and 7 April 2025 to replace the balcony door glass and the bedroom window glass. The landlord’s repair logs indicate a contractor was assigned to the repair on 28 April 2025 and a note was made stating a crane may have been required. While the landlord took steps to progress the repair, the records did not show clear planning or timescales, which made it difficult to understand how the repair was being managed.
11. On 25 June 2025, the landlord emailed the resident to say it was seeking legal advice about who was responsible for the repairs. The resident replied that he had been told 3 contractors had already submitted quotes for the work, but that these had been declined without explanation. The lack of clear communication about the quotes and the sudden shift to seeking legal advice created confusion for the resident and suggested the repair process was not being managed in a transparent or consistent way.
12. The landlord did not clarify repair responsibility until July 2025 following the resident’s formal complaint. Its internal records showed it consulted its teams to confirm who was responsible and to check whether similar repairs had been carried out in other leasehold homes, as the resident had claimed. The landlord considered the possibility of a latent defect but found no evidence of the same issue in neighbouring properties. It therefore confirmed that the repair was the resident’s responsibility. This decision was communicated to the resident in the stage one complaint response. The delay in reaching and sharing this conclusion added to the resident’s uncertainty.
13. At the landlord’s request, the resident provided details of 12 other homes he believed had the same issue in his stage 2 escalation request. The landlord did not address this information or show that it had investigated the properties identified. Without considering the evidence the resident supplied, it was unclear how the landlord ruled out a latent defect and concluded that the repair was the leaseholder’s responsibility. This showed a gap in its investigation and weakened the basis for its decision.
14. The resident told the landlord that he had a 6-month-old child in the home and raised health and safety concerns. After reviewing the photographs of the shattered glass, it was clear that, although the landlord said it had made the area safe, the condition of the glass would still have caused understandable concern. The landlord should have taken the household’s vulnerability into account when managing the repair. Its failure to properly consider the evidence provided when confirming repair responsibility added to the distress the resident experienced.
15. The resident also raised questions about the NHBC warranty and the sinking fund. In its complaint response, the landlord said the cost of the repair could potentially be covered either under the NHBC structural warranty or through the sinking fund. This limited response did not give the resident clear guidance about which route applied or what action the landlord would take to confirm responsibility. The lack of clarity added to the resident’s uncertainty about how the repair would be progressed.
16. Newbuild homes have a defect period, usually lasting 12 to 24 months from handover, during which the original builder is responsible for some repairs. A landlord would raise issues with the developer during that period. In this case, the defect period ended in 2020. After that point, defects are usually dealt with under the building’s warranty with the NHBC. The resident’s home benefits from an NHBC warranty, and it is the resident’s responsibility to report claims to NHBC as the leaseholder. The landlord is only responsible for raising a claim if it is a defect affecting communal areas or if it is known to affect multiple properties in the same development. It is reasonable to expect the landlord should have clarified this sooner to the resident to provide clear guidance.
17. The landlord now acknowledges that similar defects were apparent in the defect liability period. This means that the landlord was aware of glazing defects affecting the building between 2018 and 2020. As such, the landlord’s position from its stage 1 complaint response dated 5 August 2025 that ‘no other repairs can be located on the system regarding the same issues’ was inaccurate. This is a significant shortfall in the landlord’s response to this complaint. It indicates that the landlord’s maintenance and complaints staff were unable to access accurate information about known defects in the building.
18. The landlord’s defects policy indicates that repairs accepted as defects are recorded in the landlord’s system called ‘Arena’. In addition, each building should have an ‘End of Defects’ report created when the liability period ends. When complaints and enquiries are received, landlord staff should be able to easily access accurate information on known defects so this can be shared with residents. On this occasion, landlord staff appear to have either been unable to access the information or misinterpreted the information regarding defects in the building. This has not only significantly delayed the repair, caused the resident considerable inconvenience, but also eroded the resident’s trust in the landlord.
19. To improve the service offered to residents, it is essential for landlords to learn from outcomes. The landlord should invest time in self reflection on this complaint. I have therefore ordered that it completes a senior management review into the case to identify additional learning and improvement.
20. In its complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation. It awarded £80 for the inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise the impact on the resident, and £20 for the time and effort involved in pursuing the complaint.
21. Where a landlord admits failings, our role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We also consider whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcome.
22. The landlord’s offer of £100 did not reflect the extent of the issues identified in this report or the level of distress experienced by the resident. The landlord did not clarify why its position changed despite its contractors notes nor did it properly consider the evidence provided by the resident concerning other properties. The landlord also failed to provide clear guidance about the resident’s queries concerning the NHBC warranty.
23. The failings result in a determination of maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about shattered balcony door glass and window glass. We have made an order for additional compensation to be paid for the distress and inconvenience caused. The additional amount aligns with our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has provided an offer of redress which does not fully reflect the failings we have identified in our investigation and the impact on the resident. We have also made an action order to ensure the glazing repair is completed.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of the complaint and a stage 1 response would be issued within 10 working days of logging the complaint.
25. At stage 2 the landlord will issue a response within 20 working days of the escalation request.
26. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s concerns within the stated timescales in its complaint response.

Learning

27. The landlord did not follow up on the resident’s reports that other properties had been affected by similar issues. This highlights the importance of proactive investigation when concerns suggest a problem may be wider than a single household. Without follow‑up, potential patterns or systemic defects can be missed, allowing issues to escalate, spread, or remain unresolved for longer.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. Landlord staff were unable to identify similar latent defects in the same building. The landlord should assess its record keeping and knowledge management for defects.

Communication

29. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its communication with the resident and noted that the issues experienced by the resident would be shared as part of its complaints process to improve the service it was delivering.