London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202305740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305740

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 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 reports of the condition of the lawn.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

3. The resident is a shared owner of a new build 3-bedroom property with the landlord being the freeholder. The landlord is a housing association and has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
4. The resident moved into the property in 2021 and reported several snagging issues to the landlord. This included an issue with her garden grass growing in patches, which she attributed to the grass being laid on unsuitable ground.
5. On 6 April 2023 the resident made her first complaint as the issue with her lawn had not been resolved. The resident expressed safety concerns that the ground was unlevel and sought that it be remedied.
6. On 19 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response and stated that in March 2021 the resident was advised that landscaping was not covered under the property’s warranty, and that she was given guidance on how to maintain the grass. The landlord stated that it had raised the issue with the developer and that they had declined to remedy it. The landlord signposted the resident to contact the National House Building Council (NHBC) as the property was no longer under warranty.
7. On 25 October 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord’s records indicate that she remained dissatisfied that the lawn had not been remedied. The records also indicate that the resident had complained that the side gate was not attached to the adjacent fence. The resident sought these issues to be remedied.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 31 October 2023 and confirmed that the developer would attend on this day to review the lawn. It recognised that its communication and level of service fell short of expectations and offered £160 compensation which was comprised of:
   1. £100 for time and effort resolving the complaint
   2. £60 for poor complaint handling
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred her complaint to this Service. In her referral, she advised that the grass was remedied in February 2024 and that she had not received a response from the landlord concerning the side gate issue. She also stated that she had raised separate complaints concerning repairs to the parking area and of the landlord’s service charges.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. In her referral to this Service, the resident raised concerns regarding repairs to the parking area and the landlord’s service charges.
11. It does not appear that these issues have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP). This Service would not ordinarily investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s ICP. This is as a key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. It is important that the landlord has first had an opportunity to consider the complaint and to seek to resolve it through its usual procedure. It is only once the landlord has done this, that the Ombudsman will seek to determine whether its response was reasonable and appropriate.
12. This investigation has subsequently not sought to investigate the above matters. If the resident wishes to pursue these issues, she will need to ensure that the matters have been raised as formal complaints and exhausted the landlord’s process.

The landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of the condition of the lawn

13. The landlord’s job card indicates on 26 March 2021 the resident reported that the garden was growing in patches due to it being laid over cobbles. We can see that the job was marked as completed on 30 March 2021; it is not disputed that the resident was advised that this issue was not covered under the property’s warranty and that she was advised to aerate the lawn and to give it 4 seasons to develop.
14. On 21 April 2021 the landlord reiterated this position and advised that it should the issue remain outstanding that it would be picked up during the end of defects liability period (DLP) inspection. This was appropriate at the time.
15. In March 2022 the landlord advised that it attempted the DLP inspection but was unable to access the property. The landlord’s website states that before the DLP expires, resident’s will receive notification of an end of defects inspection. There is no evidence demonstrating that this was done. In her response the resident stated that the landlord was unable to rearrange the visit. Given that the landlord had previously advised the resident that the lawn issue would be picked up during the inspection, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought to rearrange this with the resident.
16. Moreover, we would expect to see that the landlord had brought the lawn issue to the developer’s attention prior to the warranty expiring. This was not done, which was inappropriate. 
17. The resident provided evidence of the lawn’s condition which the landlord agreed to take forward with the developer. In June 2022 the resident chased for an update, the landlord responded and obtained further evidence from the resident.
18. Given that the resident provided photographs to the landlord on several occasions throughout 2022, we consider that the landlord missed its opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations whilst it engaged with the developer. This was inappropriate because the resident remained unclear on what action would be taken, if any.
19. In April 2023 the issue remained unresolved which led to the resident making her first complaint. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that it had raised the garden issue with the developer and that they had not honoured the request. The landlord offered no explanation of why the request was not honoured.
20. At the time, the landlord had signposted the resident to contact NHBC. However, as part of her escalation the resident expressed dissatisfaction that she was informed by NHBC that the landlord would need to raise a claim on her behalf as it was the policyholder. Following the escalation, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for the developer to attend the property promptly. It is understood that the remedial works were completed in February 2024.
21. Whilst it may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident, the evidence shows that the landlord failed to raise the lawn issue with the developer at an earlier opportunity. Moreover, the landlord’s inaccurate advice to contact NHBC contributed to a delay in having the developer attend the property.
22. We consider it appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that it should have managed its communication more effectively and apologised for the impact to the service it provided. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s apology and offer of £100 compensation is proportionate to the detriment identified within this report.
23. On this basis, the Ombudsman has determined that a reasonable level of redress was awarded in relation the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the lawn. This is made on the understanding that the landlord pays the resident the amount promised within 4 weeks of this report, if it has not already.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

24. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
25. The landlord’s complaint policy states that:
    1. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days.
    2. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days.
26. The resident first complained on 6 April 2023. The landlord provided its acknowledgement and response within its advertised timescales, which was appropriate. 
27. The resident escalated the complaint on 25 October 2023. Again, the landlord provided its acknowledgement and response within its advertised timescales.
28. As part of its acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 2 complaint, it identified a discrepancy in its record keeping which led to its stage 1 response being issued to an incorrect email address. Given there is no evidence that the resident made the landlord aware that she had not received her stage 1 response prior to this date, we are unable to determine whether any inconvenience was caused to the resident.
29. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to provide further communication following the resident raising the issues with her garden again in August 2023. The landlord offered the resident £60 compensation in recognition of this. The Ombudsman considers the compensation offer was appropriate and was reasonable given the failure it had identified.
30. On the basis that the landlord apologised, amended its records and made an offer of compensation, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord provided a reasonable level of redress for these elements of the complaint.
31. The landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement indicates that the resident had expressed dissatisfaction that the side gate did not attach to the adjacent fence. In line with the Code, where residents introduce new complaint elements which are unrelated to those already being considered, the landlord is expected to log a new complaint for these issues. This was not done which was a failure on the part of the landlord.
32. It would have been frustrating for the resident to see that the landlord remained silent on the side gate in its final response, especially when she was advised that it would be addressed. Due to the landlord failure to consider this issue in line with the Code or its policy, this Service has determined that there was a failure in service for its handling of the resident’s complaint. It would be reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss this matter and provide a response in line with its policies.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the lawn, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must evidence to this Service that it has:
    1. Paid the resident £60 compensation for its handling of her complaint.
    2. Contacted the resident to discuss her request for a repair to the side gate.

Recommendations

36. The landlord should pay the resident its previous offer of £100 compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of the poor condition of the lawn, if it has not done so already.