London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202212403)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212403

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that the landlord replace:
1. The bathroom flooring.
2. The kitchen.
3. The toilet.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy began on 18 July 2011. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The records do not show when the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. This Service asked the landlord for a copy of the stage 1 request on 3 occasions.
On 21 July 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. In summary it said:
1. The kitchen cabinet had been replaced as part of its disrepair works. It attached the completion photographs. The life span of a kitchen was approximately 25 years. It had asked its planned works team to contact the resident directly to advise and assess as to when a replacement kitchen was due.
2. It was unable to find any jobs on its system relating to the replacement of the toilet, so it had raised a new order for it to inspect and advise further.
3. The bathroom flooring had now been replaced, and it attached a photo showing completion.
On 31 August 2022, the resident requested a stage 2 escalation. In summary he was dissatisfied with the following:
1. His kitchen cabinet was old and rusty and was not working. He considered that he was due a new kitchen as the condition of his kitchen was poor. He believed kitchens should be replaced every 10 years.
2. His toilet kept getting blocked and the plumbers who last attended advised him that it required replacement.
3. His bathroom floor was faulty and slippery. He believed it should be replaced as it had been there for 11 years.
In October 2022, the resident contacted this Service. There was then some confusion around whether the resident had received the stage 1 complaint response. This Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and shared its stage 1 response with the resident. This Service then contacted the landlord and asked it to provide a formal stage 2 response. This Service chased the landlord again in May 2023.
On 10 May 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It apologised that it had not sent a stage 2 response earlier. It said that it was working through a backlog of complaints. It enclosed a further copy of its stage 1 response and said that there were no outstanding works. In respect of the kitchen renewal, it could now see that a job had been raised for an inspection to take place on 12 June 2023. It was sorry about the impact this had on the resident and offered £200 compensation broken down as follows:
1. Review of stage 2 decision £60
2. Inconvenience and distress £100
3. Time and effort £40.

Post Complaint.

In July 2023, the resident contacted this Service and said that his kitchen cabinets were falling off of the walls. His floor still needed to be replaced, and the toilet continued to leak and kept blocking.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures.

The landlord’s repair policy states it is responsible for the fixtures and fittings for water and sanitation. It states where age and wear and tear affect key components such as kitchens and bathrooms these will be replaced through a planned programme of work. It aims to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
It states it is responsible for the kitchen cupboard hinges when snapped or a frame is defective. It is also responsible for base and wall units and doors when rotten or loose from walls. In relation to the bathroom, it is responsible the toilet flushing mechanisms and waste pipe blockages not caused by the resident. It is responsible for non-slip floor coverings it installed causing a trip hazard.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that before it accepts a disrepair claim it will manage these cases through alternative dispute resolution avenues using the complaint process. It has a 2-stage complaint process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states compensation may be offered where:
1. It fails to respond to a complaint within its agreed response times and it has not advised the resident of any exceptions.
2. It fails to complete repairs within its agreed response times, and it has not kept the resident updated.
When assessing the level of compensation, it will consider the distress and inconvenience caused and the resident’s need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting the landlord to put matters right.

Legal disrepair claim.

This Service is aware that there was a disrepair claim made by the resident about various other repairs which are not part of this complaint. The landlord provided a schedule of repairs which was put together as part of the disrepair claim. Within this schedule it provided additional repairs/defects which it had found on an inspection that were not part of the claim. It agreed to complete these works also. These included the following:
1. It would renew the damaged side panel in the kitchen.
2. It would renew defective flooring in the bathroom.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it replace the bathroom flooring.

The landlord said in its stage 1 response that the flooring had been renewed as part of the disrepair claim. The records do not confirm this. However, the resident confirmed to this Service that the flooring had been replaced as part of the disrepair claim but he could not recall when. He said that his complaint was that since it had been replaced the floor was beginning to raise and had become slippery.
The landlord’s records show that the new issues relative to the bathroom floor were raised as a repair when the resident requested his stage 2 complaint. This was appropriate. The records state that works to the bathroom floor were completed on 5 October 2022. The records do not provide any detail to show what works were completed.
The resident has recently advised this Service that the issue with the flooring had not been resolved. This Service asked the landlord to clarify the issue, but the additional evidence provided by the landlord failed to clarify matters. This is a record keeping failure and a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time which was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident. This has also prevented the Ombudsman from determining whether the alleged time and trouble spent by the resident was extensive and therefore likely to cause some inconvenience to the resident.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked twice to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as the resident’s original complaint to the landlord. In this particular case the investigation has been unable to reach a determination based on the information to hand.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been forthcoming in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. This Service considers the above record keeping failings amount to maladministration in its handling of the matter. An order for the landlord to take appropriate action to put matters right in respect of the flooring has also been set out below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it replace the kitchen.

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response shows that the landlord was put on notice at the point the stage 1 request was raised. As stated previously however this Service has not been provided any records to show when this was.
The landlord states in its stage 1 response that the kitchen unit that was rusty had been replaced. It does not state when. This Service has not seen what records it relied upon to satisfy itself that the unit had been replaced. This is a record keeping failing and is a continued failing that has been found throughout this investigation.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had passed the request for the kitchen to be renewed to the appropriate team. It said the team would contact the resident and set out its position in respect of the kitchen replacement. The records do not show if it communicated with the resident after this. This is a record keeping failing which is a further failing in its handling of the matter.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said that it had now raised an inspection of the kitchen which was due to take place on 12 June 2023. The landlord failed to offer any explanation for its delays within its response. This was a missed opportunity to put matters right at an earlier stage.
The resident had been waiting for the landlord to set out its position in respect of the kitchen for over 10 months. This was inappropriate and a failing. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show what action if any the landlord took after its stage 2 response. The resident has advised this Service that he is still waiting to be told whether his kitchen can be renewed. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to clarify this to the resident to put matters right.
In summary the landlord has failed to evidence whether it took any action in response to the resident’s concerns. The evidence does show that the matter was still outstanding 10 months later. The landlord was also recently asked to clarify matters but has failed to do so. The landlord is aware that the resident is vulnerable. He had to spend time and effort pursuing matters with the landlord and then this Service. He has also had to continue to live with the uncertainty of whether matters would ever be resolved. This Service considers these failings amount to maladministration.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it replace the toilet.

The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it was not aware of any issues with the toilet. The records provided to this Service do not show whether the landlord had been put on notice prior to the complaint process. This Service is also unable to assess exactly when the landlord was put on notice as the landlord has failed to provide a copy of the resident’s stage 1 request. It is evident that the landlord was aware when it issued its stage 1 response in July 2022.
The records provided do show that the landlord attended on 17 October 2022 to check the fitment of the toilet, but it is unclear what the landlord’s findings were in respect of this. Furthermore, this was 3 months after its stage 1 response where it said it had raised a job to check. This was unreasonable and not in accordance with its own time scales. The resident advised that the landlord had attended after its stage 1 complaint response, but the issue had not been resolved.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that the repairs had all been completed. It is unclear what records it had relied upon to satisfy itself that the matter was resolved. This Service has not had sight of such records. The landlord has therefore been unable to evidence its position. That it has not is a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
In summary the failings found above amount to maladministration. Evidence of poor communication and record keeping has been a feature seen throughout the investigation as already detailed above. Some of the key areas that demonstrate this are missing repair records and lack of detailed records. There is also no evidence seen by this Service that the landlord communicated with the resident about the repair. The landlord then demonstrates further poor communication in the formal complaint responses detailed above that again could have provided it an opportunity to clearly set out its position.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping it is unclear whether the landlord did respond within its own timescales to the resident’s stage 1 request. This was a failing in its record keeping. Its stage 2 response was issued on 10 May 2023. This was 173 days after the resident’s stage 2 request made on 31 August 2022. This was outside of its own policy timescales and a further failing.
The stage 1 and 2 complaint responses did not show a meaningful assessment of how the landlord had handled the issues. It was unclear what records it had relied upon to satisfy itself that it had completed all of the repairs as stated in its stage 2 response. Both complaint responses demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. By failing to consider what went wrong the landlord failed to put things right.
This Service considers the above failings amount to maladministration. The complaint process was protracted and hard to access for the resident. There were unreasonable delays in issuing complaint responses, and the resident was cost time and trouble in needing to seek assistance in getting responses. The complaint responses lacked learning, empathy, and a detailed assessment of the landlord’s actions.
This Service considers the above failings amount to maladministration. It was unclear what failings the landlord was offering redress for in its stage 2. It appeared to be in respect of its handling of the complaint. The amount it offered of £200 did not however reflect the failings identified above and the stress and inconvenience caused.
The resident was vulnerable and had to go to considerable effort to try to get a response from the landlord. When he did receive a response, it was inadequate. The resident had to spend time and effort pursuing his complaint further. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it replace the bathroom flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it replace the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it replace the toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1100. £200 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it replace the bathroom flooring.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident request that it replace the kitchen.
  3. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s request that it replace the toilet.
  4. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to set out its position relating to:
1. The bathroom floor
2. The kitchen.
3. The toilet.
4. It must provide a list of the repairs that are still outstanding. It should include timescales in which it will complete the repairs. It should also provide a point of contact for the resident who will oversee the repairs until completion. A copy of this letter should be provided to this Service also within 8 weeks.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete a review into its handling of the installation of the kitchen to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
2. Its poor communication.
3. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store the works information accurately.
4. It should consider its staff training and system needs, regarding how it arranges works and maintains its records, which reflect its own and contractor’s actions and how it will monitor any follow up action.
5. The landlord should share the outcome of its review with this Service also within 8 weeks.