London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202430695)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430695

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 July 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports about pests, scaffold, and related balcony repairs.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about ventilation and condensation.
   3. Handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
2. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor of a building. The resident’s tenancy started in December 2014. The resident told the landlord in 2021 she has claustrophobia and back pain. The resident lives in the property with 4 children. The building the resident lives in is subject to major balcony work and has scaffold erected around it.
4. On 23 September 2021 the resident reported to the landlord “dirty pigeons maggots nests flies” and told it she wanted to move. She said this was because the resident felt the property was unsuitable on account of its size and her medical conditions. She added that she could not access the balcony either and stated scaffold had been up for a year. The resident explained to the landlord in October 2021 that pigeons were using the scaffold to nest above her property. On 8 October 2021 the resident complained to the landlord that the scaffold had made the pigeon infestation worse. The resident complained again on 8 May 2022 about the pigeons nesting on her balcony. She also said she had not heard from the landlord about a request for an internal transfer. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach to dealing with the pigeons.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 May 2022. It said:
   1. it no longer had an internal transfer process
   2. it recommended the resident register with Home Swapper to achieve a mutual exchange and move
   3. it agreed to install netting on the balcony to stop pigeons nesting, and it said it would clear and clean the balcony
   4. it had briefed senior managers about the case, and it offered compensation of £125 (£50 for distress and inconvenience, £50 for time and effort and £25 for the delay in its stage 1 response
6. On 3 October 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about living with “hazardous” conditions since 2021 on account of her balcony condition. She also expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s handling of an internal transfer request and compensation. The landlord provided the resident with another stage 1 response on 8 October 2024 and said:
   1. its special projects team was working on necessary balcony repairs, and it agreed to remove the scaffold after this completed
   2. it agreed to consider a move on medical grounds if the resident returned its medical assessment form, but it was only able to allocate a property with the same number of rooms
   3. it explained a mutual exchange was the quickest way for the resident to find a larger property
   4. it upheld the complaint and offered the resident £400
7. During October 2024 the landlord paid the resident £250 per week while she stayed with friends. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 October 2024 on the basis that she felt the level of compensation was too little and did not cover damage to belongings or reflooring costs. She told the landlord it had not addressed her rehousing need. She referred to an issue of lack of ventilation and “unknown creatures” infesting her food supplies. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 November 2024 and said:
   1. it completed the works to the balcony and the resident had returned to her property on 1 November 2024
   2. it told the resident about the work before March 2024 and only required access
   3. it accepted there was a 2-month delay in it doing the works due to its contractor, but said the resident had refused access or to return home during the work when this was possible
   4. it cleaned the resident’s balcony on 16 September 2024 and agreed to put up pigeon spikes
   5. the £250 per week payment was to make sure that the resident did not experience ‘undue hardship’ while staying with friends, but this did not remove her obligation to pay rent or bills on her property
   6. if the resident opened windows this would reduce the ventilation and condensation issues, and it expected an improvement in this now the resident’s balcony door could open
   7. it would only consider compensation for personal belongings if there was evidence this was related to its failures
   8. it reiterated its position on rehousing and offered the resident another £480 (£880 in total when combined with the stage 1 offer) for inconvenience calculated up to the end of January 2025
8. Following the completion of the landlord’s complaint process the resident told us she wanted to complain about the landlord’s handling of the balcony repairs, pigeons, unidentified pests, ventilation and condensation. The resident wanted the landlord to reimburse her £1,000 she spent on pest control and £2,000 for the cost of replacing carpet with laminate flooring. She also wanted compensation for sofas she said were damaged. The resident accepted the landlord completed some balcony work by November 2024.
9. The landlord has told us and the resident that it needed to do additional related follow-on work to the balconies, after the complaint closure, which is still ongoing. The landlord has told the resident that it should complete this by 8 July 2025 after which it has agreed to remove the scaffold, clean her balcony, and install pigeon spikes. The resident wants an apology, compensation, and a transfer to a larger property to resolve her complaint. The resident has told us that she did not accept the compensation of £880 although it is unclear if she accepted the £125 the landlord offered in 2022.

Assessment and findings

The scope of investigation

10. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure. This is because we expect residents to allow landlords the opportunity to respond to complaints through their complaint process. The resident’s initial complaint to the landlord about pests related to pigeons. She added on 18 October 2024, after the landlord’s stage 1 response, she also had pest issues caused by “unknown creatures”. The landlord’s complaint responses did not address this specifically. As the complaint about “unknown creatures” did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint process, we have not assessed this substantively. We have however considered the issue in the context of whether the landlord’s complaint handling was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
11. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that a resident has not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time. This is usually within 12 months of matters arising. This is because we expect residents to raise issues at the earliest opportunity and while the landlord has available evidence to make an informed response. While the resident has said she had issues with ventilation since 2014 and raised this with the landlord between 2016 to 2020 we have not seen she formally complained about this until 22 October 2024. The landlord sought to address the complaint in its final response. However, we have not investigated the landlord’s response to ventilation and condensation before this as the resident did not raise it as a formal complaint before then.
12. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental effect on the health and well-being of her household. She specifically said she experienced chronic back pain, fungal infections and anxiety and her children were affected by skin reactions. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Pests, scaffold, and related balcony repairs

13. The landlord’s repair policy stated it is responsible for the structure and exterior of its properties, this includes its balconies. It will deal with routine repairs within 25 calendar days. Its pest policy states it is responsible for pigeons subject to agreement from a surveyor or maintenance manager. However, under the landlord’s repairs and pests policy it expects residents to deal with pests in the first instance. The resident’s tenancy agreement noted the resident is responsible for insurance of personal belongings and keeping the balcony clean. The landlord also has a right to access the resident’s property for repairs under this agreement. The landlord has a responsibility under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s.9A and 10, to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation and free from ‘relevant hazards’ and risks. Pests are potential hazards as they can spread disease, and inadequate ventilation or condensation can lead to mould or damp which affects health. Therefore, a landlord needs to consider whether any pest or ventilation and condensation issues it is on notice of in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
14. The resident reported an issue regarding pigeons, flies, and maggots on her balcony on 23 September 2021. The landlord raised a job on 13 October 2021 to clean the balcony. It completed this on 1 November 2021 (within 19 calendar days) in line with the timescale in its repairs policy. The landlord agreed on 27 May 2022 to install netting to deter pigeons and clear the balcony which were reasonable steps to take. It completed this on 6 June 2022. It took the landlord 10 calendar days to complete this which was in line with its repairs policy. The resident wanted the landlord to clean the balcony weekly or even daily as she explained in May 2022. However, the resident was responsible for keeping her balcony clean and tidy. While the landlord was under no obligation it cleaned the balcony in November 2021 and June 2022.
15. On 16 September 2023 the resident told the landlord the balcony was “absolutely filthy” and that she could not clean it because of her health. Although it was under no obligation to clean the balcony it should have responded in a timely way and explained the resident’s obligations, taking into account her vulnerabilities. It raised a job to clean the balcony on 30 July 2024 which it completed on 16 September 2024 which was reasonable and demonstrated a resolution focused approach. It should have also responded to the resident’s report about her balcony condition on 3 October 2024.
16. The resident was concerned that the scaffold was allowing pigeons access from October 2021. It was reasonable of the landlord to explain in October 2021 that it needed the scaffold to do major balcony work. It told the resident on 15 October 2021 that it hoped to offer more information on the timescales for the work. It was reasonable of the landlord to do this as major work can take time to complete and the timeframes in the landlord’s repairs policy did not apply to planned work. The landlord provided evidence it offered the resident an update on 3 November 2023. This update was over 2 years later and was therefore unreasonable. The landlord said it provided the resident with another update in February 2024. In this it explained it needed to access her property to remove and replace a balcony ‘bracket’ embedded in her ceiling before completing remedial and redecoration work.
17. It is unclear when this work began, the landlord said it started the work in August 2024 and completed it in November 2024. As it told the resident in November 2023 it would start the work in early 2024 it was important for it to explain fully the reasons for the delay. However, we have not seen evidence the landlord did this. The resident told us that the landlord left the scaffold up after it completed the work in November 2024. While we have seen the landlord told the resident it would remove the scaffold after completion of the work the landlord decided to keep the scaffold up as it identified necessary additional work.
18. During the period February 2024 to November 2024 the landlord provided evidence of 3 updates to the resident which was reasonable. The landlord accepted in its final response there was a 2-month delay with its contractor. It also stated the resident delayed work by refusing access in March 2024. We note the resident told this Service on 21 November 2024 the landlord had given her 2 days’ notice of the days it needed access, and she had refused. The resident’s refusal contributed to some of the delay.
19. It is evident that irrespective of the delay the balcony repair work did not complete in November 2024. The landlord told the resident subsequently the repairs were unsatisfactory and needed additional work. The landlord calculated compensation up until January 2025 in its stage 2 response. It also acknowledged in January 2025 that work was ongoing. We have seen evidence that the landlord offered the resident an update on 30 April 2025 and on 4 July 2025.
20. It is clear the landlord offered the resident hotel accommodation to help with the start of the work in 2024. This was reasonable as it told the resident in February 2024 that she could approach it to discuss alternative temporary accommodation during the period of work. However, the resident opted to stay with friends and accepted a payment of £250 per week while staying with them. This was reasonable as this arrangement was in line with the landlord’s rehousing policy. The resident felt the landlord should have offered additional compensation for this disruption. The resident would only be eligible for a disturbance or home loss payment under the landlord’s rehousing policy if she needed to move. The landlord told the resident in February 2024 and confirmed in September 2024 that she could remain in the home while the work was ongoing. We note that the follow-on work in 2025 did not require the resident to vacate her property but only to provide access in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. Therefore, the landlord was under no obligation to offer additional compensation for this.
21. While there may have been no need to move, we note the landlord acknowledged in February 2024 that the resident would be unable to access areas where it would be working in 2024. We also note the landlord never disputed the resident had been unable to access her balcony. The resident has told us the balcony remains “contaminated and unusable” to date. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to consider compensation for loss of use of an outdoor space, like a balcony, during planned works where there have been unreasonable delays. There is no evidence that the landlord considered if it was responsible for offering any compensation for the loss of balcony use under this policy. The resident told it not having this outdoor space affected her claustrophobia and deprived her children of a space to play.
22. The resident wanted the landlord to reimburse her £1,000 for pest control costs she incurred, £2,000 for replacing her carpet with laminate flooring and compensation for replacing 4 sofas. The resident was responsible for dealing with pests in the first instance and therefore it would be reasonable to expect her to incur some costs in doing this. The resident did not explain to the landlord what these costs were or why they were necessary and beyond what she could reasonably expect to pay. Therefore, in these circumstances we cannot say the landlord was responsible for reimbursing the resident’s pest control costs. The resident was responsible for insuring her belongings under her tenancy agreement. We have seen no evidence that the reported damage to the resident’s carpet or furniture was caused by any acts or omissions of the landlord. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to offer to compensate the resident for damaged furniture or reflooring.
23. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about pests, scaffold, and balcony repairs amounted to maladministration. There was a gap in the landlord offering an update on the balcony repairs between 15 October 2021 to 3 November 2023. There was a delay in it starting the work in 2024 which we have not seen evidence to explain. The landlord has not shown it responded to the resident’s concerns in October 2024 about the condition of the balcony. These delays and failures likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
24. The landlord offered the resident £880 compensation and agreed to install pigeon spikes in its final response. When a landlord makes an offer, we may consider whether this resolves the complaint and is in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. While the landlord did not show it identified any learning it acted fairly in acknowledging failings. It tried to put things right by making an offer of compensation. As these are outstanding and the work is ongoing it has not put things right. We have made an additional award of compensation to reflect this. We have awarded an additional £200 on top of the £880 previously offered to reflect the distress and inconvenience likely caused. This level of award is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been maladministration which has adversely affected the resident and the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. An order has also been made for the landlord to complete the outstanding work.

Ventilation and condensation

25. The resident reported issues with ventilation and mould on 22 October 2024. Poor or inadequate ventilation can cause mould growth which can be a hazard. Landlords need to inspect properties in a timely way after receiving a report of condensation to establish the cause and if this is something it is responsible for. The landlord told the resident that if she opened windows and her balcony door this would significantly reduce the ventilation and condensation issues. The landlord did not show in its final response it had investigated this issue which amounts to maladministration. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to inspect the resident’s ventilation. We have also made an award of compensation of £100 to acknowledge the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Our remedies guidance allows for awards of this amount where there has been a failure that has adversely affected the resident.

Management transfer request

26. We acknowledge the resident wants the landlord to rehouse her to a larger property on account of overcrowding. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that a move on medical grounds would not achieve this and advised her to look at a mutual exchange. This was in line with its allocations and lettings policy. This Service cannot fairly order a landlord to rehouse the resident to a larger property as we do not know the availability of properties or local housing need.
27. The resident told the landlord on 23 September 2021 she wanted to move urgently. The landlord told the resident on 8 October 2021 that it could not help with rehousing. It clarified on 27 May 2022 that it did not have an internal transfer process which is consistent with the landlord’s 2021 allocations and lettings policy. However, we note it accepted a medical assessment form on 21 December 2021 and by the 28 June 2022 it decided to decline a medical transfer for a ‘direct let’. This was over 6 months after the resident submitted a medical assessment form. It took the landlord until 20 April 2023, nearly 10 months later, to give the resident its decision. Therefore, overall, it took nearly 16 months for the landlord to consider the resident’s request for a move on medical grounds. This was an unreasonable length of time. When the resident appealed this decision on 3 October 2024 the landlord sent another medical assessment form to the resident. This was appropriate as the resident needed to provide additional medical information to support her challenge.
28. The unreasonable delay amounted to maladministration. Therefore, we have ordered compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance. This guidance allows us to award compensation of this amount where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident without a permanent effect.

The landlord’s complaint handling

29. The landlord has a 2 staged complaint process. It must deal with complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord noted the resident made a complaint on 8 October 2021. It took the landlord 159 working days to provide its stage 1 response (on 27 May 2022) against a target of 10 working days. When the resident raised another complaint on 8 October 2024 the landlord responded on 3 October 2024 in line with its complaint policy. Given the gap between complaints, it was appropriate for the landlord to log a new complaint. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 October 2024, and it took the landlord 22 working days (21 November 2024) to respond at stage 2. This was a short delay which caused no detriment.
30. Paragraph 6.8 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states the landlord should log a new complaint where a resident raises additional complaints during the complaint process and where it has issued a stage 1 response, the new issues are unrelated, or it would unreasonably delay the response.  The resident raised a complaint about “unknown creatures” after it had provided a stage 1 response. As there is no evidence this was related to the complaint the landlord was investigating it needed to log a new complaint. There is no evidence it did this which was not in line with paragraph 6.8 of the Code.
31. The delays in providing the first stage 1 response and failure to log a new complaint likely caused the resident to incur time and trouble. We note that the landlord acknowledged the delay in its first stage 1 response in May 2022 and offered £25 for this. It is unclear if the landlord paid this, however given the length of the delay and the landlord’s failure to log a new complaint it would be fairer to award a higher amount to acknowledge these combined failures. We have therefore awarded the resident an additional £100 for this in line with our remedies guidance. This allows for awards of this amount where there have been service failures.

Determination                

32. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about pests, scaffold, and related balcony repairs.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the ventilation and condensation concerns.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

36. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. write to the resident with an apology from a senior member of staff for the failures in this report in line with our apology’s guidance published on our website
    2. provide the resident and this Service with a timeline for completing the balcony repairs, removing the scaffold, cleaning the balcony, and installing pigeon spikes
    3. inspect the ventilation in the resident’s property. If the landlord identifies any repairs or recommends any necessary improvements relating to the ventilation the landlord should write to the resident and this Service within 2 weeks of the inspection setting out what these are and the likely completion dates
    4. pay the resident directly £1,430 made up of:
       1. an additional £200 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its response to pests, scaffold, and related balcony repairs
       2. £880 previously offered if this has not already been paid
       3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its response to the ventilation and condensation concerns
       4. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s management transfer request
       5. £100 for the time and trouble likely caused by its complaint handling
    5. consider if the landlord should pay compensation for the loss of use of a balcony in line with its compensation policy and write to the resident with its decision. The landlord should explain how it calculated any compensation
    6. write to the resident to update her on her management transfer appeal, explaining any documentation it needs to consider this
    7. contact the resident to establish if she still has an issue with pests at the property and if so advise her as to what action it can take in line with its pest policy
37. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.