London & Quadrant Housing Trust — case 202446628

Decision Case ID 202446628 Decision type Investigation Landlord London & Quadrant Housing Trust Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 24 April 2026 Background The resident was dissatisfied with how the landlord handled his reports of multiple repairs. He said it had not properly addressed several issues which had persisted for years. He requested that it inspect the issues before raising further repairs. He also asked it to provide him with a copy of the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR).

The landlord was not aware of any vulnerabilities. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of multiple repairs. Associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of multiple repairs. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Reports of multiple repairs The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered compensation.

However, there has been continued delays in completing agreed actions and repairs. Associated complaint While the landlord responded within its policy timescales, it failed to address all the points raised by the resident in its complaint responses. 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 27 May 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £380 made up as follows: £300 distress and inconvenience for the continued delay in resolving the substantive issue £80 offered in its stage 2 response This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 27 May 2026 3 Inspection order Following the landlord’s offer to inspect in its final complaint response, the landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed.

If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the property for outstanding repairs and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work No later than 10 June 2026 4 Complaint handling order The landlord must respond to the resident’s request for a copy of the EICR.

If it cannot provide a copy as requested in his former complaint, it must explain why. No later than 27 May 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should update its records to ensure they accurately reflect any vulnerabilities in the household. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 11 December 2024 The resident complained to the landlord about several outstanding repairs.

He said he believed the kitchen and bathroom may have been painted with lead paint. He asked it to inspect this due to the potential health risks. He also said the kitchen was substandard and that its condition prevented him from tiling the wall. The resident reported an ongoing leak from the loft that the landlord had previously attended but not fully resolved. He said water remained in the loft and the ceiling patch had not dried. He stated it had not identified the source of the leak and asked it to explain what action it had taken.

He also raised concerns about outstanding repairs to the garden door. Additionally, he requested a copy of the EICR completed in February 2022 and said it had taken too long to complete the outstanding works. 19 December 2024 The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 response. It told the resident its complaints policy allows it to consider repairs raised within one year of the complaint being logged. It said several of the concerns dated back to 2004 and it could not investigate them.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the repairs service. It said despite encouraging him to report the repairs, he did not want it to raise any further repairs until he sought external advice. It said it would inspect the reported issues. It said it would wait for the inspection to take place before progressing any related repairs. 17 January 2025 The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, stating several repairs remained incomplete. He raised concerns about the leak, the kitchen and bathroom, the garden door, and the potential presence of lead paint.

He also said the landlord needed to check for asbestos and that he wanted a supervisor to carry out an inspection to resolve the issues. 20 January 2025 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. 13 February 2025 The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It noted the resident remained dissatisfied and acknowledged the outstanding issues. It confirmed it had submitted a referral, but no surveyors were currently available in the area. It said its maintenance team would contact him to arrange a date and time once a surveyor became available.

The landlord accepted that the service provided was insufficient, partially upheld the complaint and offered £80 compensation. It comprised: £40 for inconvenience for failure to recognize the impact due to vulnerabilities £40 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved Referral to the Ombudsman The resident escalated his complaint to us because he was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. He wanted it to repair the leak, conduct surveys for lead paint and asbestos, and provide a copy of the EICR he had requested.

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 Reports of multiple repairs Finding Maladministration In his original complaint, the resident reported multiple outstanding repairs at his property.

He said the landlord had previously attended to repair a leak in the loft, but the leak appeared to be ongoing. He raised concerns about potential lead paint in the kitchen and bathroom and said the condition of the wall prevented him from tiling it. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it could not investigate the issues because the resident had not raised any repairs in the 12 months before his complaint. It said he would have to raise new repairs. This position aligned with its complaint policy, which requires residents to raise complaints within 12 months of the issue arising.

This was a reasonable approach, as he had not raised any new repairs within the relevant period. While the landlord offered to raise new repairs, the resident declined. He said he wanted a surveyor or supervisor to inspect the issues. Although it encouraged him to raise the repairs, it agreed it would arrange a visit and await the outcome. It requested a welfare visit and an inspection. This was a positive step to consider vulnerabilities and provide additional support. However, the evidence shows the landlord requested a supervisor visit but was informed it first needed to raise a repair.

It said if its operatives identified further work as necessary, it could then consider an inspection. It also advised a leak required prompt action and should not wait for an inspection. It provided the resident with this update and explained how he could raise a repair. It would have been good practice for it to confirm what actions it could and could not take before proposing this as a resolution. This would have avoided further delay and frustration. The resident escalated his complaint.

In its response, the landlord apologised for not arranging a surveyor visit sooner. It said it had made a referral on 28 January 2025 but was advised that no surveyors were currently available in the area. It explained that the maintenance team would contact him directly when one became available. It offered £80 compensation for the inconvenience caused by failing to recognise the impact on the resident due to his vulnerabilities. It is unclear if it was aware of any specific vulnerabilities.

It also recognised the time and effort he spent pursuing the complaint. This was reasonable at the time to acknowledge its failings in addressing the repairs. That said, there has been no evidence provided to demonstrate it followed through with its agreed actions and issues remain outstanding. An internal email in December 2025 requests a supervisor to inspect the property, 10 months after the final response. It said due to the length of time and previous failed repairs, an inspection was required.

It also noted the resident advised due to the leak he was only able to use one room in the property. The issues raised remain unresolved 14 months after the final response and the landlord did not follow through on the actions it had agreed. While it may not usually arrange an inspection before raising repairs, it offered this approach as a resolution at both stage 1 and stage 2. It should have followed through on that commitment by completing the inspection and raising any related repairs.

With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have made orders for the landlord to apologise and pay compensation for the failings identified. We have also made orders for it to complete the agreed actions in its final response. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint within our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 and 2 responses within its policy timeframes, 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord did not respond to all the points the resident raised in his complaint. He asked it to provide him with a copy of the EICR, but it did not address this request in its responses. There is no evidence that it provided the document to him. As the resident raised this issue as part of his complaint, the landlord should have addressed all points formally and clearly explained its position on the matter.

It did not act in line with its complaints policy. As such, we have ordered it to respond to the resident. Learning General learning Landlords are expected to address all points raised in a complaint. Where an issue cannot be considered, it should clearly explain its position and direct the resident appropriately within the formal response. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord offered compensation to acknowledge the impact on the resident due to his vulnerabilities.

However, its records do not show any recorded vulnerabilities. Good practice requires landlords to update its records to accurately reflect a household’s circumstances. Communication Internal communication was poor. The landlord was unclear about the resolutions it could deliver and offered the same outcome at both stage 1 and stage 2, despite having been informed that it was unable to provide this.