Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202411110)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411110

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1.  Reports of issues with the back door.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He resides at the property with his wife whom the landlord is aware is disabled.
  2. The landlord replaced the back door of the property in May 2023. On 28 September 2023 the resident told the landlord that the door was allowing a draught into the property and required repair.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 January 2024. He said several visits to repair the door had not resolved the issue. He told the landlord that the property was cold due to the draught, and that his wife was more susceptible to this due to health conditions.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 11 January 2024. It provided a history of repair work to the door and apologised that this had not rectified the problem. It said that it had instructed its contractor to contact the resident and arrange the necessary repair work.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 26 January 2024. He was unhappy that he had not been contacted to arrange repair work to the door.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 28 May 2024. It said its contractor had completed investigations into the door fault and repair work was complete. It offered the resident £170 in compensation which it broke down as:
    1. £40 as a result of its contractor failing to attend 2 repair appointments.
    2. £80 for an 8-month delay in completing the repair to the door.
    3. £50 for its delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He wanted it to provide an accurate response to the issues raised in his complaint, and complete repair work to the back door.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Housing Ombudsman assesses landlords’ handling of residents’ complaints to ascertain whether they took reasonable steps to resolve these within their internal process. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the events and evidence from May 2023 leading up to its final response on 28 May 2024. Any events following its stage 2 response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Issues with the back door

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of homes including external doors. It also states it will:
    1. Attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours.
    2. Complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
  2. Upon receiving the resident’s report of a draught through the back door on 28 September 2023, the landlord logged a repair which it attended on 9 October 2023. This was in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. Its actions at this visit included adjusting the door hinges and keeps and overhauling the locking mechanism to attempt to rectify the problem.
  3. On 16 October 2023 the resident told the landlord that its repair had not solved the draught. It responded in a timely fashion by re-attending on 25 October 2023 to attempt an alternative repair. At this visit it advised the resident that it needed to instruct its contractor who had installed the door to attend and repair it. Given that the door had been replaced 5 months earlier and therefore was likely to be within its warranty period, this was reasonable action for it to take.
  4. The landlord’s records show that its contractor attended on 29 November 2023. It overhauled the door and sealed inside and outside of the door frame. Upon complaining on 10 January 2024, the resident told the landlord that this repair work had not rectified the problem. He said that due to his wife’s disability it was important his home was kept warm, and the draught from the door was making this difficult. He said during a previous repair visit an operative had told him that the door was installed incorrectly. Due to this he requested that it instruct an alternative contractor to conduct the repair work.
  5. In its stage 1 response on 11 January 2024 the landlord apologised that previous repair visits had not rectified the issue for the resident. It explained that the contractor who had installed the door was responsible for its repair. It said it would be raising a “recall” repair job which its contractor would arrange directly with the resident. Although we understand that the resident would have preferred the attendance of an alternative contractor, it is our opinion that the landlord appropriately managed his expectations by explaining why this was not possible. It was reasonable that it subsequently passed all relevant information over to the contractor when asking them to re-attend, including the possibility that it had fitted the door incorrectly.
  6. On 26 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that its contractor had not been in touch to arrange the repair work as agreed. Due to this he wanted to escalate his complaint. The records show that he chased the landlord on 6 and 8 February 2024 to request an appointment was arranged. Despite the landlord’s attempts at contact with the contractor, they did not confirm a date to attend until 20 February 2024 and gave no explanation for their delayed response. They said they would attend to repair the door on 26 February 2024. This put the landlord more significantly outside of timescales set out in its repairs policy.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 February 2024 to advise that he had waited in all day and the contractor had not arrived. He said he had not received a phone call to advise that this would be the case. The landlord attempted to contact its contractor to ascertain the situation but was unable to get through. This poor communication likely left the resident feeling frustrated and ignored. However, the landlord could not have known that its contractor would not attend a prearranged repair. Thus, this event was outside its control.
  8. On 5 March 2024 the contractor told the landlord it had not attended the repair appointment due to an emergency. They said they would contact the resident to get the appointment rearranged. There is no evidence that the landlord made further efforts to communicate with the contractor to follow up on this information. Given it was aware that the repair remained outstanding, it would have been appropriate for it to obtain an update and contact the resident to keep him informed. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.  
  9. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord 4 times between 2 April and 14 May 2024 to attempt to schedule the door repair work. Whilst it contacted the resident on 23 April 2024 to advise that his designated complaint handler had changed, there is no evidence that it responded to his contact attempts or updated him on the situation during this time. Its failure to do so meant it missed several opportunities to address the resident’s concerns and respond appropriately.
  10. The records indicate that the contractor attended the property on 14 May 2024. In their subsequent communication with the landlord on 24 May 2024 they said they had found no fault with the door. Given that the resident had been reporting the issue for 8 months, and it was aware previous repair work had not solved the problem, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm that this was in fact the case. By conducting a post-works survey or contacting the resident to confirm he was satisfied with the function of the door, the landlord could have ensured that the issue had been resolved. It would have been appropriate to take this action as part of its stage 2 investigation, before issuing its final response.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to adequately address the issues the resident had faced. It did not apologise for its failings, nor did it address the vulnerabilities it was aware of within the household. It stated that repair work to the door was complete, which was immediately disputed by the resident. The response contained inaccuracies both in its summary of events, which noted incorrect dates of its contractor’s attendance as well as its compensation calculation, which did not align with amounts set out in its compensation policy. The evidence shows that despite the resident contacting the landlord 4 times between 28 May and 18 June 2024 to discuss this, it failed to respond to him.
  12. We are aware that following the landlord’s final response the resident continued to report that repair work to the back door was outstanding. On 28 June 2025 it attended and replaced the existing door, which it had found to be unfit for purpose. The resident has told us that this has rectified the issue and he is satisfied with the work carried out. While not assessing these later events, we have mentioned them as evidence that the landlord had not been thorough in its investigation or the repairs nor had it listened to the resident.
  13. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  14. The landlord made a total offer of compensation for the substantive issue of £120. In line with its compensation policy, it apportioned £40 of this towards 2 missed appointments it had identified. Although we have only been presented with records that identify 1 missed appointment, we recognise its investigation may have included access to more comprehensive evidence and therefore welcome this offer.
  15. The landlord apportioned £80 in compensation for its delay in repairing the door. In calculating this it referred to an award for £10 a day based on the delay. Due to the fact there is no mention of this award in its compensation policy we have recognised this as human error. It is our opinion that its offer of £80, based on delays to repair the door, failed to recognise the level of distress caused to the resident. The matter had been ongoing for over 8 months and the landlord did not recognise the level of inconvenience likely caused to the resident having to continually chase it to complete its agreed action, which remained outstanding at the time of its final response.
  16. Our remedies guidance provides for compensation in the range of £100 to £600 for situations where there was failure by a landlord that adversely affected the resident causing distress and inconvenience. As the landlord did not recognise the effects of its failings and the fact these were compounded by the resident’s concerns given his wife’s vulnerabilities, we have made an order for it to pay increased compensation.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. At either stage, if the response cannot be completed within these timescales, the resident will be notified to inform them of the progress of their complaint and when they will expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales.
  2. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 26 January 2024 however this was not acknowledged by the landlord until 18 working days later. This was not in line with its policy.
  3. Upon acknowledging the resident’s escalation request on 20 February 2024, the landlord said that its response may be delayed due to an increase in complaints. It did not advise him when to expect its response nor provide any further written update as set out in its policy.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 68 working days after acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. This is significantly longer than the timescales set out in its policy. Its response did not explain nor apologise for this delay which was inappropriate.
  5. In its final response the landlord said it recognised there had been a delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and offered £50 in compensation due to this. It did not demonstrate any learning or offer any redress for its delay in issuing its final response. We have, therefore made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to pay a further £50 to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance as set out above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the back door.
    2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £450 broken down as follows:
      1. £350 (this includes the £120 previously offered if not already paid) for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the back door.
      2. £100 (this includes the £50 previously offered if not already paid) for its complaint handling failures.
      3. This payment must be paid directly to the resident and not to his rent account.
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.