London & Quadrant Housing Trust — case 202217857

Decision Case ID 202217857 Decision type Investigation Landlord London & Quadrant Housing Trust Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 6 February 2026 Background The resident said that he has reported various repair issues to the landlord since his tenancy began in 2018. He said the landlord has completed some repairs, but many issues remain outstanding. In May 2025 he asked us to help him raise a complaint to the landlord. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlords: Handling of a pest infestation (mice).

Handling of repairs. Complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We found: Service failure in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation (mice). Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Pest Infestation We found that the landlord handled the pest infestation in line with its pest policy. It inspected the property, baited and completed some proofing works.

However, the initial inspection was delayed, and some proofing works remained outstanding. Handling of repairs The landlord repeatedly failed to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale. There were significant delays between the resident’s reports, the surveyor’s recommendations, and the completion of works. The landlord did not communicate with the resident about the delays or the progress of the repairs. The landlord’s record keeping was poor, making it difficult to evidence what actions were taken or when.

Complaint Handling The landlord did not manage its complaints process in line with the Code. 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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 06 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.

£400 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord must pay the resident directly by the due date and provide documentary evidence of the payment to us by the due date. No later than 06 March 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 9 May 2025 The resident complained to the landlord. He said he had raised many repair issues and that these remained outstanding.

The repairs included draughty and noisy windows, intermittent problems with the heating and hot water, a vandalised and broken security gate and damage to a shower tray. He also said there was an active pest infestation in his flat. 16 May 2025 The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said: on 13 June 2024 the pest controller inspected, treated, and baited the property it had repaired the security gate there was an active disrepair case about the windows, hot water, and heating and that in accordance with its complaints policy, issues that fall under legal action sit outside the complaints process.

16 May 2025 The resident escalated his complaint because he felt the landlord had not taken enough action. He said the pest infestation was still ongoing, the window issues had not been resolved, the shower tray was damaged, and the heating and hot water remained unfixed. 16 September 2025 The resident told us that he had not heard from the landlord regarding his escalated complaint. We asked the landlord to provide a response. 18 September 2025 The landlord provided its stage 2 response.

It repeated its findings from stage 1 and: acknowledged the resident’s additional complaint regarding damage to his shower tray and tiles. It directed the resident to its liability insurers to make a claim for damage to his belongings offered £40 compensation for a complaint handling failure. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought the complaint to us because he was frustrated that the landlord had not completed the repairs. He said he wanted the landlord to complete the required works.

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 Handling of a pest infestation (mice). Finding Service failure In April 2024 the resident reported mice in his property. He said they were entering through gaps left after the landlord’s repairs.

On 25 June 2024 the landlord’s pest controller inspected the property. The landlord’s pest and repairs policy says that it is responsible for mice infestations caused by disrepair and Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard says a landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Pests are listed as a potential category 1 hazard. Although the landlord’s policy does not specify a timescale when dealing with pests, it policy states that it has a standard 20-working day repairs target.

Therefore the 47-day delay for the landlord’s inspection and first treatment was unreasonable. The contractor provided advice on kitchen hygiene to the resident and baited the property. It re-attended on 17 September 2024, although no dead mice were found, droppings were observed and the property was baited again. The contractor also recommended proofing works, including removing kickboards to investigate entry points, removing the boxing-in above the boiler, and checking the utility cupboard and doorstep for signs of entry.

The landlord’s evidence does not show when, or if it completed all the recommended proofing works. In this case, the landlord failed to maintain adequate records which was unreasonable. On 4 October 2024 an independent surveyor acknowledged the reported pest issue within its report. The surveyor said it did not observe any evidence of pests at the time of the inspection. It also noted that the boxing-in above the storage cupboard had been removed as part of the landlord’s proofing works and had not been reinstated.

The surveyor made an advisory recommendation to replace the boxing-in. The pest contractor returned on 9 October 2024 and the resident reported reduced mouse activity. The contractor replenished the bait and installed additional bait boxes in the lounge. This showed that the treatment was working and the pest infestation was under control. On 20 May 2025 the landlord completed a post-inspection of works, the resident confirmed that the mice infestation was no longer present.

However, he reported that he he could hear pests within the ceilings. The landlord explained that pest activity within the communal areas was being monitored and that an annual baiting programme was in place. It was reasonable of the landlord to reassure the resident that action was being taken and was on-going. Overall, the landlord took appropriate action to treat the pest infestation within the resident’s property and provided information about its approach to managing pests within the communal area.

However, it delayed investigating and treating the infestation and did not progress the recommended proofing works in a timely way. These delays were not reasonable, as a result, the landlord’s actions amount to a service failure. Having considered the case, we find the landlord should apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the pest infestation. The landlord’s policy states that it will pay compensation where it fails to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are its responsibility, and the customer is continuing to live in poor conditions longer than is reasonable.

Further, this amount is in line with our remedies guidance for a minor service failure, which the landlord has not acknowledged. Complaint Handling of repairs Finding Maladministration What we have not looked at The resident said that various repair issues have been ongoing for several years. While we do not dispute his account, this investigation will only consider events which took place up to 12 months prior to the formal complaint. This is in line with our Scheme. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints that are referred to us normally more than 12 months from the date of the final response.

In this case, the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure in 2023 regarding the ventilation system. However, he did not refer the complaint to us until after 12 months on 9 May 2025. We have not seen any reasons which have prevented the complaint from being referred to us sooner. Therefore, we will not investigate the complaint about ventilation. What we have looked at The resident has raised several concerns about repairs in his property. For clarity, each issue is set out separately below, followed by a summary of our findings.

Heating, hot water and damage to a shower tray It is evident that the resident reported several intermittent problems with his heating and hot water. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the installations it provides for heating and hot water. Although the landlord can decide how it carries out repairs, it should identify, record, and address any repeated pattern of failure. Multiple reports of heating and hot water loss indicated a pattern of repeated failure that required a resolution.

Between February and October 2024, the resident reported 4 instances of heating or hot water failure. On 23 February 2024, the landlord cancelled the works order because the resident was not at home. It cancelled the order again on 22 March 2024 but its records did not explain the reason. A report made on 13 June 2024 was recorded as completed on 18 March 2025, and a report on 10 September 2024 was recorded as completed on 4 October 2024. The landlord’s records did not clearly set out what actions it took, when it took them or if they were taken within a reasonable timeframe.

This has made it difficult to evidence that the landlord managed the repairs effectively or within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This was inappropriate and demonstrated poor record keeping. In October 2024 an independent surveyor inspected the property and found that the shower temperature fluctuated, which it attributed to a fault with the mixer tap. The surveyor made several recommendations, including repairs to the shower unit and thermostatic control, reinstating pipework, fitting thermostatic radiator valves (TRV) to2 rooms, and repairing the sink mixer tap.

Following the inspection, the landlord’s records do not show what works it completed, or if the recommendations were implemented within a reasonable timescale. This lack of clear and consistent records has limited the landlord’s ability to demonstrate that it took appropriate steps to address the recommended repairs. The landlord evidenced that it had completed some works in line with the surveyor’s recommendations in March 2025, when the contractor reported that it had fitted the TRV valve and tested the heating and hot water.

These works took place 5 months after the surveyor made its recommendations. The delay significantly exceeded the landlord’s repairs policy timescale of 20-working days. On 20 May 2025 the landlord completed a post-inspection of the works. The works recommended by the surveyor were recorded as completed, and both the landlord and the resident signed the declaration. The records did not indicate that further works were required. Or that the resident continued to experience issues with the heating or hot water.

This showed that the landlord at this point had taken steps to address the identified issues and improved the level of service it provided. On 11 June 2025 the landlord recorded that the resident was unhappy because his shower tray, that he had installed, was damaged during repair works. In its final response, the landlord addressed the issue of damage to belongings or installations. It advised that as the resident had installed his own shower tray, he should contact the landlord’s liability insurer to make a claim.

The landlord provided the insurers details, which was appropriate, as the landlord’s liability insurance is intended for these issues. Windows On 21 April 2024 the resident reported that repairs were required to his windows because of excess cold and noise. The landlord’s records show that it attended on 7 May 2024 to complete the repairs, but the resident was not at home. The resident reported the issue again on 24 June 2024 and on 7 July 2024 the landlord attended and replaced the gaskets to 2 windows.

The landlord attended and completed the repair within a reasonable timescale. On 4 October 2024 an independent surveyor inspected the property and found no evidence of blown windows, misting or condensation to double glazed units either internally, externally or between the panes of glass. The surveyor did not recommend any further works. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the surveyor’s professional opinion regarding the condition of the windows. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated the surveyor’s findings to the resident until the 10 April 2025.

The outcome of the inspection should have been communicated within a reasonable timescale. Earlier communication would have helped manage the resident’s expectations. Security gate An independent surveyor inspected the communal security gate on 4 October 2024. The surveyor reported that the gate had been vandalised, was bowed, and that the lock was broken. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for boundary fences and gates, and that routine day-to-day repairs should be completed within 20 calendar days.

The surveyor recommended that the landlord overhaul and repair the gate. The landlord said it completed the repair on 30 December 2024. This was 88 calendar days after the inspection. The landlord did not meet the suggested timescale in its policy, this was inappropriate. Summary Overall, the landlord failed to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale. There were delays between the resident’s reports, independent surveyor recommendations, and the completion of works, which significantly exceeded the landlord repairs policy timescale.

The landlord did not provide adequate explanations for the delays or showed that it had communicated with the resident regarding them. Further, its records did not clearly evidence what actions it took or when. Given the repeated delays, the resident’s time, and trouble in reporting the issues, and the lack of effective record keeping, we find maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 to reflect the impact of its failings. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which allows compensation when repairs it is responsible for and not completed within the agreed timescales and the resident has not been advised of any exceptions.

It is also consistent with our remedies guidance for failings that have had an adverse impact on the resident and which the landlord has not acknowledged. Complaint Complaint Handling Finding Maladministration Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord’s current complaints policy and procedures are in line with the Code.

On 26 March 2025, the resident told this service that he had expressed dissatisfaction to his landlord on numerous occasions and that the landlord had not replied. He asked this service to support him in making a complaint. On 8 April 2025 we asked the resident to send to us evidence of the escalations, but we did not receive any documentation. As a result, we are unable to make a finding on this point. On 9 May 2025, we submitted the resident’s complaint to the landlord. The landlord provided its acknowledgement on the same day and the stage 1 response on 16 May 2025.

The landlord provided its responses in line with its policy and the Code. The landlord told the resident in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses that it would not investigate some parts of his complaint because the matter was subject to a legal claim. The Code makes clear that the existence of legal correspondence or pre‑action steps do not, by themselves, prevent a landlord from progressing a complaint. The landlord was therefore expected to continue to engage with its complaints process in relation to service delivery and complaint handling issues.

As it did not respond to parts of the complaint, this was inappropriate. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 16 May 2025. It was not until we raised it for a second time on 16 September 2025, that the landlord acknowledged it. The resident should not have had to raise the complaint a second time for it to be acknowledged. This was unreasonable, was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code, further it delayed the resident unreasonably in obtaining a resolution.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 17 September 2025 and provided its stage 2 response on 18 September 2025. From the acknowledgement, it is noted that the landlord provided a response within 20 days in line with its policy and the Code. The landlord acknowledged a failing regarding the delay at stage 2 and has taken some steps to put things right. However, it did not fully address the detriment to the resident and Its offer of £40 compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified.

We would have maladministration but for the landlord acknowledging the issue and taking some action to remedy it. Therefore, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Having considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident. This reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling. Learning The landlord should ensure its complaint handling around legal matters or pre‑action is in line with the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) We expect landlords to keep clear and robust records of resident contact and repairs. Accurate and accessible records provide an audit trail and help landlords to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The evidence in this case shows a failure in this respect. We encourage the landlord to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) May 2023. Communication The landlord provided limited evidence of communications with the resident, and we identified failings because it did not communicate proactively.