London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202534798)

Decision
Case ID	202534798
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	7 May 2026

Background

The resident reported several concerns to the landlord about how it handled roof repairs. She was unhappy with its response.

What the complaint is about

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Roof repairs.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s roof repairs.
2. Reasonable redress 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 the resident’s roof repairs

The landlord did not handle the repair in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. Its communication with the resident was poor. She spent a significant amount of time chasing for updates and progression of the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord recognised its shortcomings in its complaint handling and offered reasonable redress in line with our compensation guidance.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 04 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of roof repairs. This includes an additional payment of £140. It must pay this directly to her by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 04 June 2026
3	Clarification order The landlord must write to the resident to set out its position regarding: her report of damaged porch tiles her concern that the roofing works completed were not the works initially agreed It must provide a copy of its communication to us by the due date.	No later than 04 June 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £80 it offered for its complaint handling shortcomings. This recognised genuine elements of service failure. We have made a reasonable redress finding on the basis that it pays this to her. This is in addition to the amount ordered above.
The landlord should improve its initial repair assessments to ensure it identifies access requirements, such as scaffolding, at the earliest opportunity.
The resident said mould returned to the property following the roof repair. We recommend that the landlord investigates this as a potential hazard and considers its obligations under Awaab’s Law. It should respond to the resident directly.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 July 2025	The resident complained that the landlord delayed progressing a roof repair and there had been poor communication. She said scaffolding had been up for around 10 weeks, time had been taken off work, and contractors were unable to work because the scaffolding safety check had expired.
7 August 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
14 August 2025	The landlord said it raised a roofing work order in April 2025, and installed scaffolding at the end of May 2025. Contractors attended on 25 July 2025 but could not proceed as the scaffolding needed adjusting. To resolve the complaint, it said it would arrange the adjustment and pay £80 compensation comprising: £60 for the delay and inconvenience £20 for the resident’s time and effort
19 August 2025	The resident told the landlord that its stage 1 complaint response provided no repair timescales and did not address her concerns about communication.
21 August 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged her request the same day.
17 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed contractors had requested for a table to be moved to allow scaffolding adjustments. Once this was done it asked a contractor to arrange an appointment and said it would monitor the repair to completion. It apologised for the delay and offered an additional £360 compensation comprising: £150 for distress £150 for inconvenience £60 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved This brought its total compensation offer to £440.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred the complaint to us. She seeks a permanent and effective roof repair and compensation for the distress, inconvenience, and potential safety risks caused by prolonged scaffolding.

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 the resident’s roof repairs
Finding	Maladministration

In the resident’s correspondence with us, she said mould had returned following the roof repair. It is unclear whether she had reported this to the landlord. As this issue did not form part of the complaint in July 2025, we have not investigated it further. We have recommended that it investigates and responds directly to her about this.
On 11 April 2025, operatives identified rotten fascias and soffits which contributed to mould in the bathroom. They also noted that both roof valleys required replacement. By 17 April 2025, the landlord knew scaffolding was required to complete the works. It should have identified this at an earlier stage. Its failure to do so, and its delay in approving scaffolding until 30 May 2025, caused an avoidable repair delay.
Records show the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates between May and July 2025. In July 2025, it identified that it had incorrectly closed the repair and that the roofing team was unaware scaffolding had been erected. This demonstrates poor record keeping and ineffective internal communication, which contributed to further delay.
These failings also had a direct impact on the resident. She spent time and effort chasing updates and trying to drive the repair forward. The landlord’s lack of clear and consistent communication likely caused frustration and uncertainty. It also undermined her confidence in its handling of the matter, particularly as the repair related to roofing issues contributing to mould within the home.
On 11 July 2025, the landlord asked the scaffolding contractor to inspect the scaffold before the repair appointment on 25 July 2025. The roofing operative was unable to proceed on the day because the scaffold inspection tag was out of date and further adjustments were needed. Although the resident said her video doorbell footage showed weekly inspections, a photograph of the tag indicates that the inspection had expired. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the operative not to use the scaffold. This delayed the repair and likely caused the resident inconvenience and frustration, particularly as time had been taken off work. It also indicates shortcomings in the landlord’s oversight and coordination of the repair.
The landlord later recorded that a table obstructed the scaffolding adjustments. In its stage 2 response, it accepted that the resident could have moved the table on the day if it had asked her to do so. This was a further communication failure.
The landlord did not manage the repair in line with its repairs policy, which states that it should complete more complex routine repairs within 40 working days. The repair exceeded this timescale by over 3 months. It has not shown that it proactively managed the repair or kept the resident regularly updated. This was a failure to meet its obligations and to manage her expectations appropriately.
The resident said she raised concerns about the length of time the scaffold remained in place, including its effect on ventilation, obstruction of exit routes, and general safety. The landlord has not shown that it assessed or addressed these worries. This likely added to her distress and concern.
After issuing its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord completed the works on 23 September 2025 without giving the resident prior notice of an appointment. This shows it failed to learn from the communication shortcomings previously experienced by her. This was contrary to our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The resident later raised concerns that the completed works did not match the original specification and that the scaffold had damaged her tiles. On 8 October 2025, the landlord told her it had asked the complaint handler to respond and advised her to use the existing complaint reference number. However, we have seen no evidence that it formally considered or responded to these issues through its complaints process. Having signposted her back to the existing complaint, it should have made clear whether it would address these concerns under that complaint or raise a new one. Its failure to do so likely caused confusion and left her without a clear complaint outcome or route of escalation on the additional issues raised.
The landlord offered a total of £440 compensation within its internal complaint procedure. £80 of this was for complaint handling which we have considered separately below. While the remaining £360 acknowledges some failings, it was not proportionate to the failings identified or the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced.
In summary, the landlord failed to communicate effectively, keep accurate records, and properly address the resident’s concerns. We have, therefore, made a failure finding and ordered it to pay an additional £140 compensation. This more accurately reflects the time, trouble and inconvenience caused and is in line with our compensation guidance where there has been an adverse effect on a resident.

. Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Under our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by up to 10 and 20 working days respectively in agreement with the resident.
The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response times in its complaint policy were in line with the Code.
At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 9 working days. It issued its stage 1 response within 5 working days. At stage 2, it acknowledged the complaint the same day. It issued its stage 2 response within 19 working days. While it acknowledged the complaint late at stage 1, its responses were issued in line with its policy timescales.
The Code requires landlords to address all complaint points, give clear reasons for decisions, and set out any outstanding actions. While the landlord upheld the complaint at both stages, it failed to adequately address concerns about communication or safety during the repairs or manage expectations about repair timescales.
The landlord apologised and offered £80 compensation for her time and effort getting the complaint resolved, £20 at stage 1 and £60 at stage 2. This was in line with our guidance for complaint handling failings that caused confusion to a resident and resulted in in part of the complaint not being addressed. We have found it offered reasonable redress.

Learning

General learning

It is important for landlords to see complaints as opportunities to recover failings. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Good record keeping allows landlord to know and understand its assets generally. It ensures that it effectively manages repairs without unreasonable delays. In this case, there were repair delays perhaps impacted by record keeping. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

Our Spotlight report on Repairs and Maintenance highlights that failures can be reduced when landlords clearly explain what residents can expect and provide clear repair timescales. The landlord may wish to review this report to improve communication within its repairs service.