From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202320940)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320940

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 May 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Boiler repair works in the neighbouring property.
    2. The installation of lino flooring in the neighbouring property.
    3. Conduct by the contractors.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a studio flat.
  2. The resident raised concerns to the landlord on 29 August 2023 about the installation of lino flooring on the stairs in the void property above due to potential noise transference. He said the landlord told the previous tenants to fit carpet. He also said contractors were working until 6.10pm on a Saturday and did not clean the communal carpet following works.
  3. On 7 September 2023, the resident raised a complaint about the handling of a boiler installation at the neighbouring void property the previous day. He said the contractor installed the boiler without use of scaffolding, left rubble and a pipe on his balcony, and left boxes restricting access to the building. He said the new flue pipe was not sealed properly and caused damage to the wall. He was concerned about the health and safety risk as the contractors dropped the old flue into the communal balcony without warning the tenants of the block. He asked the landlord to thoroughly check the work as he was concerned about the level of workmanship.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 September 2023.
    1. It apologised that the contractor left rubble and a metal pipe on the resident’s balcony following a boiler installation in a neighbouring void property. It said scaffolding is not always required when replacing a flue pipe. 
    2. It apologised that the contractors were working beyond 1pm, as allowed on Saturdays.
    3. Any void works are replaced like for like. It is responsible for laying lino flooring in the kitchen and bathroom and occasionally provides lino throughout the whole property. It does not install carpet in void properties. Noise transference is normal in flats, but it told the resident to report any excessive noise when the new tenant moves in.
    4. It apologised that it had not provided the correct level of service.
  5. The resident told the landlord on 21 September 2023 that the response did not address the issues raised. He said his complaint was about the potentially fatal consequences to tenants if the metal pipe and rubble had hit anyone when it fell from the flat above. He added there is a hole in the wall where the pipe is, so it is not weatherproof. He said he informed the contractors about the council regulations regarding Saturday working hours, but they continued to work until 6.10pm. The contractors also did not clean the communal area after the works. He reiterated his concerns that the vinyl flooring in the neighbouring flat would cause significant noise transference and asked the landlord why it had not followed its policy for tenants to install carpet.
  6. In its stage 2 response on 21 November 2023, the landlord recognised it could have handled the works differently. It would erect scaffolding to ensure the flue was secure and all work was completed. The contractors would complete further training to prevent a recurrence of the issue. The contractors were not aware of the Saturday working times for the area but had now been informed. It recognised the communal area should have been cleaned following works and it had addressed this with the contractor. It reiterated its obligations about installation of flooring. It offered £210 compensation comprised of £60 for distress caused, £60 for inconvenience caused, £40 for the time and effort resolving the complaint, and £50 for the poor communication and complaint handling.
  7. The resident referred the complaint to the Service as the landlord’s final response did not address the issues in full. The landlord did not address the second instance the contractors exceeded allowed Saturday working hours. He requested compensation for the caretaking services paid as part of the service charge, as the landlord did not clean the communal carpets for several weeks despite his reports.

Assessment and findings

Boiler repair works in the neighbouring property

  1. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for repairs to fixtures and fittings for gas and heating. The landlord installed a boiler in a void property in the resident’s block on 6 September 2023. The resident raised a complaint the following day due to health and safety concerns about the handling of the works. He said the contractor had not used scaffolding to safely disconnect the old flue pipe, replace it, and reseal the wall. In its complaint response, the landlord said scaffolding is not always required to replace a flue pipe as it can sometimes complete the works from inside the property using a “push and pull technique”.
  2. The resident disputed the suitability of this technique as he said the “pipe and rubble would have exploded away from the wall hence the scattering across the balcony and down into the basement flat”. He said the flue pipe had been dropped onto the communal balcony, which would have presented a significant danger if anyone had stood on the communal balcony as the landlord did not provide any notice of the works.
  3. The landlord is entitled to rely on suitably qualified contractors with the necessary expertise to determine how best to proceed with repairs. Before completing the works, the contractors should have completed a risk assessment to ensure the works were safe. There is no evidence to confirm whether it did. Nonetheless, it is evident that the landlord’s approach presented a health and safety risk, which the landlord should have identified and taken steps to mitigate prior to completing the works. It would also be best practice for the landlord to notify residents of any works that may impact them prior to starting repairs.
  4. The landlord recognised on 17 October 2023 that it could have completed this work in a different way. It was appropriate that the landlord said the contractor would complete toolbox training sessions to prevent a recurrence of the issue. This demonstrated it learned from the outcome of the complaint. It was also reasonable that the contractor apologised to the resident on 20 November 2023 for the potential risks and acknowledged it could have handled the matter differently.
  5. The resident reported that the landlord left the flue pipe and debris on the communal balcony and empty boxes preventing access to the building after completing the repairs. The landlord should ensure that contractors leave the area in a suitable condition following the completion of works. The resident told the Service that he removed the debris himself after a week as the landlord failed to do so. This was unreasonable. The landlord apologised and said contractors should leave rubbish neatly to be later collected by the disposal team.
  6. The resident also raised concerns that the “new flue pipe is sticking out of the wall there is now a big hole in the wall around the pipe”. He asked the landlord to check the quality of the work due to risk of fire or explosion. On 20 November 2023, the landlord said it would reattend to make good the flue. The resident told the Service that the landlord has since confirmed that the boiler was safe. It was reasonable that it post-inspected the work to alleviate the resident’s concerns.
  7. In its final response the landlord offered £210 compensation. It did not specify how much compensation was awarded for each issue. We have therefore acted on the assumption that it awarded £105 for each complaint issue it found failings for. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, the level of compensation was appropriate for the identified failings in its handling of the boiler repairs.
  8. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised the failings and potential consequences and took steps to prevent a recurrence of the issue. It is recommended that if it has not already, the landlord should implement a monitoring system to ensure all its contractors have up-to-date health and safety training.

The installation of lino flooring in the neighbouring property

  1. The landlord’s website states that residents are responsible for installing flooring coverings including carpets. The landlord is only obliged to provide floor coverings in the kitchen and bathroom.
  2. On 29 August 2023 the resident reported that he saw workmen laying lino on the stairs of the flat above. He said the landlord had previously told tenants to install carpet and asked why its position had changed. He was concerned about the implications for the sound transference into his property and the potential impact on his sleep.
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said floor coverings, other than to the kitchen and bathroom, within properties are the residents’ responsibility. It said it will not install carpet in void properties, but it may leave any carpets installed by previous tenants that are in good condition. It added that noise transference within flats is normal. Although the landlord’s response was factual and in line with its policies, it did not address the resident’s specific concerns that it had installed lino on the stairs. This would likely cause the resident to believe it was not taking his concerns seriously.
  4. The resident further raised concerns on 21 September 2023 that the landlord had not followed its policies by installing hard flooring on the void property stairs. He said the landlord informed him its policy was to have carpet in place where there is a flat below, which was the case for previous tenants. Although this is typically best practice, the Service has not seen evidence of a specific policy to confirm this requirement. As such, the landlord would not be obliged to enforce the incoming tenant to install carpets.
  5. The landlord informed the Service of the reason for installing lino throughout the void property, which we are unable to disclose. Nonetheless, the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances. In view of this, there was no failing in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
  6. At the time of the complaint, the property was void so the exact impact on the resident was unclear. It was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident to report any issues that arise when a new tenant moves in. The resident told the Service that he has not since experienced any issues with excessive noise. In the case any future noise issues arise, the landlord must ensure it investigates and responds to the resident’s concerns in line with its policies and relevant guidelines.

Conduct by the contractors

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it has “a clear guide for all suppliers whether internally or externally sourced, to ensure that residents receive a reliable, safe service that offers and affords them respect.” It notes the general principles include treating residents with respect and care, demonstrating they are “ready, willing and able to help”, and taking ownership and responsibility for problems.
  2. On 19 August 2023 the resident reported that the landlord’s contractors were working until 6.10pm on a Saturday. The local council’s website states that the standard Saturday working hours is 8am to 1pm. Approval is required for any work taking place outside of these hours. The landlord must ensure that it complies with the council regulations. 
  3. The landlord said that the contractors were unaware of the specific working times for the area and were focused on completing the works. It asked the contractor whether they had obtained a permit, but there is no evidence to confirm whether they did. This was unreasonable. Further to this, the resident said he informed the contractors of the regulations, but they did not stop working.
  4. The landlord should ensure that its contractors have suitable knowledge of regulations that they need to follow. It was reasonable that the landlord informed the contractor of the regulations to prevent a recurrence of the issue.
  5. However, the resident reported a second instance the landlord exceeded Saturday working hours on 14 October 2023. It was inappropriate that there was a recurrence of the issue despite the landlord making assurances it had taken steps to resolve the matter. The landlord did not address this in its stage 2 response. It therefore failed to respond to all points raised by the resident.
  6. The resident also reported that the contractors had not cleaned up after completing the repairs. The landlord recognised that the contractor should hoover and mop the communal areas where necessary after completing works. The resident advised he pays a service charge fee for caretaking. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not clean the communal area for 2 weeks after the resident’s report.
  7. It is evident the extended work hours caused disruption to the resident. He also said that other residents had complained to him as they thought the noise originated from his property. The landlord offered £105 compensation for its failings identified in the contractor’s conduct. As the impact was for a short period, the level of compensation was proportionate.
  8. It also failed to fulfil its caretaking obligations for 2 weeks. The landlord would typically be expected to refund the service charge for the period the resident paid for a service that was not provided. We have not been provided with information about the breakdown of the resident’s service charge. In this case it is deemed that the compensation offer would sufficiently cover the service charge for the caretaker fee.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about boiler works in the neighbouring property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of lino flooring in the neighbouring property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about contractor conduct.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £210 compensation as offered in its final response.
  2. The landlord should implement a monitoring system to ensure all its contractors have up-to-date health and safety training.
  3. The landlord should take steps to ensure all its contractors are aware of the Saturday working hours.