London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202529566)

Background

1. Following leaks from the communal roof into the resident’s property, the landlord notified the resident that it intended to carry out roof repairs. The resident complained to the landlord about delays to the repairs and its lack of communication.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
   2. 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 roof repairs

5. The landlord addressed its communication failures and the delays to the repairs and made attempts to put things right. However, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s insurance concerns or consider interim measures while she waited for the repairs to start. It also failed to follow up on actions promised in its stage 2 response.

Complaint handling

6. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, however it identified the failures and made attempts to put things right. The compensation offered was proportionate to any distress or inconvenience likely caused to the resident.

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.

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.

7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 notice of intention to erect scaffolding at her property in line with Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This was to carry our repairs to the roof following leaks. The notice gave her 35 days to raise observations. There is no evidence the resident responded or raised any observations.
8. The landlord’s repair log shows it raised a work order on 4 January 2024 after rainwater leaked into the resident’s living room. The job was cancelled for unclear reasons. It did not attend until 14 March 2024, when it could not gain access but noted a bricklayer was needed to replace missing bricks at the front of the property. It is unclear why this visit took 50 working days. Although the landlord had begun the process to repair the roof, it would have been reasonable to consider interim measures until the work could start.
9. On 20 March 2024 the landlord recorded that the next available appointment to attend the repair was in October 2024. There is no evidence to show that it communicated this to the resident who called in March and April chasing the repair. When she called on 1 October 2024, the landlord confirmed an appointment for 22 October 2024. It was unreasonable that the resident had to wait over 6 months for the landlord to reattend.
10. The inspection on 22 October 2024 confirmed the same as the inspection in March 2024. The landlord’s records show that in November 2024 it was aware the resident had an active insurance claim for the damage the leak was causing inside her home. There is no evidence of any action taken to carry out any repairs or any communication from the landlord regarding the scaffolding following its notice in January 2024. On 11 December 2024 the landlord carried out another inspection which identified a need for scaffolding.
11. On 16 January 2025 the resident told the landlord her insurance company had been chasing updates on the repair since March 2024. The landlord’s records show it failed to obtain a second like‑for‑like scaffolding quote after issuing its notice of intention, preventing progress to the next stage of the section 20 process. It said it would need 2 comparable quotes or would have to restart the process. It is not clear what the landlord’s alternative was if it could not progress with section 20 or when this was communicated to the resident, indicating poor record keeping.
12. In her complaint, the resident asked for an explanation for the delay in progressing the section 20 process and stated that rain still entered her property. On 6 March 2024 she called again stating she was unhappy with the lack of communication and that her insurance company were threatening to cancel her claim. The landlord apologised and scaffolding was erected the following day.
13. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained it had decided to complete the repair outside of the section 20 process. It did not state when it made this decision or address its lack of communication. As it failed to carry out any works following its decision, it demonstrated a failure to monitor its repairs. However, it did apologise for the time taken to address the issue and offered £640 compensation for the inconvenience caused due to the delays, which was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
14. The landlord promised to monitor the repairs and keep the resident informed. It provided an update on 25 March 2025. It contacted her on 26 April 2025 to arrange a site visit and updated her 7 times between 28 May and 11 July 2025. It explained it was moving to stage 2 of the section 20 process, and that the resident would have 35 days to raise observations. This showed an improvement in the landlord’s communication.
15. The resident told the landlord she did not receive the stage 1 notice of intention in October 2023 and that she did not get notice to raise observations at that stage. The landlord resent the letter. The records show that it did send the letter in October 2023.
16. In her escalation, the resident reiterated her dissatisfaction with the delays. She said her insurance company had been waiting for 17 months and that she felt disappointed in the levels of service from the landlord. She said she would not pay increased service charges to cover the cost of the repairs, due to its lack of communication and delays.
17. On 29 August 2025 the landlord informed the resident it had moved to stage 3 of the consultation. It detailed the observations raised at stage 2 and its responses, the chosen contractor and the reasons for its choice, in line with the section 20 process.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord outlined the steps taken between March and August 2025 and said it was awaiting a party wall agreement. It also explained that the resident would need to contribute to the repairs under the section 20 process because she had not completed roof works linked to her purchase discount. Although this position was reasonable, the landlord failed to address her concerns about the insurance company.
19. The landlord apologised for the delays and its lack of communication. It offered the resident £700 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in line with its compensation policy. It also said it would update the resident regarding the party wall agreement and monitor the repairs until completion.
20. The resident told us that following the stage 2 response, she received no updates about the party wall agreement and the repairs remained outstanding. The landlord failed to adhere to the actions promised in its complaint response.
21. In summary, the landlord addressed its communication failures and the delays to the repairs and made attempts to put things right. However, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s insurance concerns or show it considered interim measures while she waited for the repairs. It also failed to follow up on actions promised in its stage 2 response.
22. The landlord offered a total of £1,340 compensation. This was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident and above the recommended range of redress in our remedies guidance for failings that have a significant impact. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to reoffer the compensation offered, if not paid already. We have also made orders for it to apologise to the resident, update her on the repairs, with a timeline for the works and details of interim measures. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair and put things right.

23. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant code is the 2024 edition.
24. On 16 January 2025 the resident told the landlord she felt “overwhelmed and embarrassed” by its failure to resolve the leaks into her property. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have raised a complaint on the resident’s behalf. However, this was of no significant detriment to the resident who raised a complaint herself 8 working days later.
25. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day it received it. This was in line with the Code which says it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
26. The Code states that landlords must issue a stage 1 response 10 working days after acknowledgement. Any extension to this must be no more than 10 working days without good reason. On 10 February 2025 the landlord informed the resident of an extension, saying it would provide its response by 24 February 2025, which was reasonable.
27. On 6 March 2025 the resident called the landlord chasing her complaint response. The landlord issued it the next day. There is no evidence to show the landlord had requested a further extension. This was not in line with the Code and likely caused inconvenience to the resident. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord identified its poor complaint handling and offered the resident compensation in line with its compensation policy.
28. The resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repairs, saying she would approach our service for help. The landlord apologised for the delays and escalated the complaint on her behalf. This was in line with the Code which states that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.
29. The Code states that landlords must issue a stage 2 complaint response 20 working days after acknowledgement. Extensions must be no more than 20 working days without good reason. On 19 August 2025 the landlord told the resident it needed an extension. This was 22 working days after it acknowledged the escalation and slightly outside the timescales set by the Code. It issued its stage 2 response in a reasonable time, and in doing so, acknowledged the delay and offered compensation.
30. Whilst there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, it identified the failures and made attempts to put things right. The compensation offered was proportionate to any distress or inconvenience likely caused to the resident. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling, providing it pays the resident the compensation offered in its complaint responses.

Learning

31. The landlord missed an opportunity to identify learning points to address in its complaint responses. Whilst in its stage 1 response it said it was determined to learn from the experience; it would have been in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes for it to set out areas of learning to the resident within its internal complaint procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. Some of the landlord’s repairs records are unclear and do not detail the reasons for cancelled work orders or delays in completing them. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions. It also failed to carry out works after deciding to complete the repairs outside of the section 20 process. This showed a failure to monitor its repairs.

Communication

33. The landlord failed to reasonably communicate with the resident at times throughout the duration of the issue. Landlords should ensure that residents are kept updated throughout the repairs process. With particularly complex repairs, it is good practice to assign a single point of contact and agree update intervals. This manages resident expectations and can strengthen relationships.