London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202308958)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308958

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

9 June 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 response to the resident’s request for compensation for a damaged fridge freezer.
2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a shared owner and he lives in a 3 bedroom house. The house was newly built when the resident bought his share in 2021. It had built-in kitchen appliances including a fridge freezer.
4. The resident complained on 2 May 2023. He said he had replaced the fridge freezer and found the original one was damaged at the back. The damage was not apparent until he removed it. He wanted the landlord to give compensation for the damaged fridge freezer.
5. The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 12 May 2023. It said kitchen appliances were not covered by its building warranty and he had not reported any issues during the warranty period. It did not uphold his complaint.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on 13 May 2023. He said the landlord had installed a “broken” fridge freezer and should have noticed the damage at the time.
7. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 18 July 2023. It repeated he had not raised issues during the warranty period and it did not uphold his complaint.
8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate because he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He wants the landlord to give him compensation for the damaged fridge freezer.

Assessment and findings

Damaged fridge freezer

9. The resident’s lease confirms he is responsible for the kitchen appliances. The landlord’s Home User Guide explains residents are responsible for insuring home contents and that kitchen appliances may be covered by manufacturer warranties.
10. The Home User Guide says the landlord’s new home warranty does not cover the kitchen appliances. This is unless damage is identified during a welcome inspection when residents move in.
11. The resident told us his welcome inspection was virtual. A member of the landlord’s staff was in the house and gave a video tour while the resident watched remotely. It is not clear if holding welcome visits virtually is the landlord’s standard approach. If it is, the landlord should consider whether it is fair to expect residents to notice damage to appliances they have only seen by video.
12. There’s no evidence to explain when the fridge freezer was damaged or how the damage occurred. It is unlikely the resident or landlord would have seen the damage during the welcome inspection even if the resident had been there in person. This is because the damage was on the back of the fridge freezer which was built into a kitchen unit. As such, the back would not have been visible unless the fridge freezer was removed from the kitchen unit.
13. It was unfortunate that the resident did not know the fridge freezer was damaged until he had a new one installed on 2 May 2023. Although the landlord’s warranty period had ended, the resident asked the landlord to compensate him for the damaged fridge freezer in his complaint of 2 May 2023.
14. The resident seemed to have raised his concerns when he became aware of the damage. We appreciate that it would have been difficult for the landlord to have verified this, and to establish whether any damage present was caused by its staff given the time that had passed since its installation. In the absence of any evidence, we do not consider it inappropriate that the landlord was reluctant to accept responsibility.
15. In our view, however, the landlord did not adequately consider the resident’s request for compensation. It would have been reasonable to find out why he felt it was liable.
16. There is no evidence the landlord made any attempt to contact the resident during its complaint process. While this may not have resulted in a different outcome, it would have shown the resident it was properly considering his request before deciding its position.
17. The resident told us he had needed to replace the fridge freezer because it stopped working. He explained the supplier installing the new fridge freezer told him the damage was the likely cause of the original one breaking down. The resident felt the landlord should pay compensation because the damage meant he had to replace it sooner than he should have. The landlord may have responded to the resident’s request differently if it had asked him about his request at the time.
18. In our view, the landlord’s complaint responses were dismissive and unempathetic. For example, both responses said he had not reported any problems during the warranty period. Neither acknowledged that the damage would not have been apparent until the fridge freezer was removed from the kitchen unit or that the resident may have been reporting the issue as soon as he became aware.
19. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 18 July 2023 said the manufacturer would have investigated if the resident had registered its warranty. It is not clear why the landlord said this, given there is no evidence it had asked the resident if he had registered the manufacturer’s warranty or reported the damage to the manufacturer.
20. The landlord should have addressed the resident’s assertion that it had installed a broken fridge freezer in its stage 2 response. Its failure to do so meant it missed the opportunity to explain the checks done during the building process and explain why it felt it could not be responsible.
21. While the landlord may have been entitled to decide not to pay compensation, it could have been more empathetic in its response. It could also have suggested he claim from his contents insurance to recover the cost of replacing the damaged fridge freezer. 
22. Given the above, we have concluded that there was a failure in service. This is because it did not adequately consider the request and, in our view, offered a response which was dismissive.
23. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £50 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and appropriately recognises the inconvenience likely to have been caused.

Complaint handling

24. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
25. The resident complained on 2 May 2023. While there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged it, it gave its stage 1 response 7 days later on 12 May 2023. As such, the landlord met the timescale required by the Code in providing a stage 1 response.
26. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 May 2025 saying he wanted to “appeal” its decision not to pay compensation. It should have recognised his email as a request to escalate his complaint. It appears the landlord did not recognise the escalation because there is no evidence it acknowledged it at the time.
27. This caused the resident to chase for a response to his email and ask the Ombudsman to intervene. We wrote to the landlord on 13 July 2023 asking it to provide a stage 2 response by 20 July 2023. It then acknowledged the escalation.
28. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 18 July 2023. While this was within the timescale we gave on 13 July 2023, it meant it took 45 working days (from 13 May 2023) to give its final response. This was not in line with the 20 working day timescale for giving a stage 2 response required by the Code.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not identify any failings in its complaint handling. There is no evidence it investigated why it had not recognised the escalation from the resident’s email of 13 May 2025. This was a missed opportunity to learn from its mistake.
30. Overall, the late stage 2 response, failure to investigate why it happened, and failure to acknowledge the delay amounts to service failure. The delay caused some inconvenience to the resident because he chased the landlord and asked the Ombudsman to intervene.
31. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £50 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and appropriately recognises the inconvenience caused.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for a damaged fridge freezer.
    2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

33. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise. Its apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident. It must send us a copy.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £100. It must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is made up of:
       1. £50 compensation for the inconvenience likely to have been caused by its response to the resident’s request for compensation.
       2. £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its handling of his complaint.

Recommendation

34. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord consider if virtual welcome visits are a fair way for resident’s to identify damage to kitchen appliances when buying a home.