London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202207166)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207166

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 August 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of his property overheating
2. The associated complaint
The Ombudsman has also commented on the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2013. The property was a new build in 2013 and is a 1-bedroom, third floor flat.
In June 2022 the resident logged a complaint with the landlord about the temperature of the property. In his complaint the resident said that the issue with his home overheating has been going on since at least 2014. Evidence from the landlord’s repair log shows it was aware of the issue since 2016.
The resident made three attempts to chase a response to the complaint and contacted this Service for help on 8 July 2022.
We wrote to the landlord in August and September 2022 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint. The resident contacted us in July 2023 to say he had still not received a response, so we wrote to the landlord again on 5 September 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 8 September 2023. It noted the complaint was about the temperature of the flat. It summarised its actions taken to date and identified some works to be completed.
The resident escalated his complaint on 17 April 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 July 2024. The response noted the complaint was about the high temperature of the flat and the poor complaint handling/communication. It summarised the actions it had taken to try to find out what was causing the problem of the overheating and said it would keep the complaint open until the work was completed. It also told the resident it would not consider him for an internal housing transfer and gave advice on applying for a mutual exchange. The landlord awarded the resident a total of £780 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the issue and to reflect the poor complaint handling time.
Since the resident complained, the landlord has made some attempts to resolve the issue. The landlord has checked the Mechanical Ventilation and Heat Recovery (MVHR) system, applied reflective balcony paint, and raised an inspection to check the insulation.
The resident advised this Service in July 2025 that no repairs or inspections have taken place since August 2024, and the substantive issue is unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

When speaking to the Ombudsman in 2024, the resident said he had had problems with overheating in his flat for over 10 years. The landlord’s repair log shows that between 2016-2020 it had raised several repairs for the ventilation system and placed an order for the provision of an air conditioning unit. The resident was unhappy the issue had not been resolved and raised a formal complaint on 26 June 2022. This report will consider the historical context but will focus on the 12-month period leading to the June 2022 complaint.
In his complaint to the landlord, the resident said that the extreme heat in his flat and the stress it was causing was affecting his own and his child’s mental and physical health. The Ombudsman is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. We can consider any distress or inconvenience that was caused because of any inaction or failings by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of his property overheating.

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of his property overheating and complaint handling were appropriate and proportionate.

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states “we will keep in repair and in working order all fixtures and fittings space and water heating” and “we will carry out repairs we are responsible for, such as repairing or replacing fixtures and fittings…to ensure that they are in a safe and functioning condition”.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home, and fixtures and fittings for heating. It will complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days, and emergency repairs within 24 hours.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Overheating is a potential hazard that can fall within the scope of the system. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
On 23 June 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. The complaint said:
1. the situation with the flat overheating had been going on for the last 8 years.
2. the portable air cooler he was given by the landlord did not make much difference and did not cool the whole flat.
3. he worked from home and found it uncomfortable, tiring, and difficult to concentrate because of the heat, which also affected his teenage son who stayed at the property sometimes.
4. he considered it unfair to be paying the running costs of the air cooler.
5. he asked for an urgent meeting to discuss his living conditions.
6. he had contacted Citizens Advice and the Local Authority’s Environmental Health team and was considering seeking legal advice.
There is no evidence of any communication between the landlord and resident about the overheating from August 2022 until around 8 months later in April 2023. This period of inaction is concerning because the resident was still experiencing ongoing distress and would not have known what the landlord’s next steps were. It shows the landlord was not prioritising the issue appropriately or considering the resident’s reportedly challenging living situation. It was unfair the landlord did not visit the property or communicate with the resident about their overheating problem for this length of time.
Within his complaints, the resident asked the landlord for a permanent move. The landlord said it would look into this further and update the resident, but no update or support was provided. This likely left the resident unclear about his rehousing options. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not keep its promise to communicate further on the matter.
Since making his complaint, the resident has told the landlord that he suffered with a physical health condition, and that the high temperatures in the property were having a detrimental impact on his physical and mental wellbeing. The landlord has not acknowledged or acted on these concerns. It has missed opportunities to sense check its approach, take purposeful action to establish the cause and plan its strategy to address the overheating. Meanwhile the resident continued to live with the reported extreme temperatures in the property, causing him significant distress and inconvenience.
The HHSRS confirms landlords have wider obligations in terms of health and safety. In this case, we have not seen evidence that the landlord did any ongoing monitoring of the situation such as a data logging exercise or thermal imaging survey, despite being told about the resident’s health concerns. It is unclear if the landlord accepted whether there was an overheating issue or had any data on the actual temperatures in the property and if these were determined to be a habitable level. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out more thorough investigations, perhaps seeking involvement or advice from the local authority’s environmental health team, to understand whether the resident’s reports had any merit.
The repair log provided by the landlord shows that it made some attempts to address the issue over a period of 2.5 years, between March 2022 and August 2024. The landlord had arranged multiple inspections of the Mechanical Ventilation and Heat Recovery (MVHR) unit, including in March 2022, August 2022, May 2024 and twice in August 2024. A contractor report from August 2024 said the system was working as it should and that replacing this unit again would not improve the overheating. The evidence suggests a more proactive approach was necessary given that the inspections/works to the MVHR unit found no problems and did not improve the overheating issue.
In September 2023 the landlord asked its contractor to quote for painting the balcony with low emissivity anti slip paint and fit solar reflective film to the windows. It was right for the landlord to try some alternative solutions. In a recent conversation with this Service, the resident told us that the balcony paint was completed but the application of window film has never been done. We have seen a document and photograph from the landlord’s contractor which suggests the window film was fitted to the balcony in September 2023, but we acknowledge this is disputed by the resident.
On 8 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. it said:
1. the (unspecified) works would now take place under a latent defect, led by its Special Projects team in the Development division, who would be dealing with the complaint from now on. It said a National House Building Council (NHBC) claim was in progress and that its Special Projects team would update the resident when they had more information.
2. it had raised orders for interim works to help reduce the temperature of the flat including balcony paint and solar film on the windows.
In August and September 2023 the landlord told the resident it was involving the developer under a warranty claim and that its Latent Defects team would meet the developer to discuss the issue. It is unclear whether the landlord understood the cause of the issue, giving the developer specific direction on what work was needed, or if it passed the investigation responsibility to the developer for them to find the cause. The landlord did not offer any further explanation on what this meant for the resident. It was unreasonable that the landlord said it had passed the case to the Latent Defects team but then never referred to this again. Aside from unfairly raising the resident’s expectations, the landlord’s actions were confusing. It remains unclear what issue it considered to be a defect, and we have seen no evidence that the landlord chased updates on the referral, or whether one was even made. The landlord did not have proper oversight of the issue.
After 6 months of inaction from the landlord following the stage 1 response, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 17 April 2024. He said he was unhappy with the lack of progress in the landlord’s actions following the stage 1 response and said he continued to suffer with prolonged discomfort which was affecting his physical health. The landlord had painted the balcony during this time, but the resident said this had not improved the temperature in his flat. There is no evidence that the landlord was continuing to investigate the issue nor was there any communication from the Latent Defects team to update the resident on their actions.
In June 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it would continue to investigate and promised to update him monthly. It was right for the landlord to offer this commitment as its communication had been poor up to that point. However, in this communication the landlord did not refer to or acknowledge the stage 2 complaint escalation or reply to the concerns raised by the resident.
On 19 July 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. This response:
1. noted that a complaint was raised in 2019.
2. said it thought the “issue with ventilation” was because the flat was located under the communal plant room.
3. said it could not confirm if the work to create an opening in the ceiling to allow insulation inspection had been completed.
4. noted that over the last 11 years the MVHR unit had been serviced and replaced. It said its contractor would be in contact with the resident to make an appointment to inspect the MVHR unit.
5. said it would arrange for another contractor to service the AOV (Automative Opening Vents) in the building to check that this was not a contributing factor to the problem.
6. offered the resident a total of £780 in compensation, with £240 in recognition of distress caused, £240 for inconvenience caused and £300 for poor complaint handling time.
We have seen evidence that the landlord raised an order to create an opening to allow for insulation inspection. This was raised in April 2023, but in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it did not know if the inspection was ever done. Whilst it was right for the landlord to explore other potential causes of the issue, it was unreasonable that over a year later it could not evidence that the inspection had taken place and the landlord should have prioritised completing the investigation.
In July 2025 the resident told us he has had no further visits or inspections from the landlord since last August. He said the air conditioning unit supplied by the landlord in July 2020 does help to cool the living room but is very loud and he finds it difficult to work from home or enjoy his living room while this is running. It does not cool any other part of the flat and is costly to run. He said the flat is still too hot and he is affected by this daily. He said his flat is not under a plant room, contrary to the landlord’s statement in their stage 2 response. He does not believe the landlord understands what is causing the overheating.
The landlord has still not established its position on the resident’s overheating reports. It did not carry out any tests or monitoring of the internal temperatures at the property and it is unclear whether the landlord agrees there is a problem with the temperatures and, if so, what they understand to be the cause. It is unfair that the landlord has not said whether it upholds the resident’s concerns. This mishandling of the resident’s expectations was unreasonable, leaving him uninformed on the landlord’s position or approach towards a satisfactory outcome.
The compensation offered in the landlord’s stage 2 response amounted to £780, of which £480 was for distress and inconvenience and £300 for its complaint handling. Based on the evidence available, and with reference to our remedies guidance, the landlord’s offer of £480 for the substantive issue was insufficient and does not reflect the distress, inconvenience and discomfort endured by the resident. In this case, the compensation offer does not fully reflect the length of time the issue has been ongoing and the extensive delays between some of the landlord’s actions and communications. The landlord could have avoided unnecessary delay had it properly investigated the issue when the resident first reported it, as outlined in paragraph 20 of this report. The offer is not proportionate or reasonable recompense in relation to the resident’s reports of how he has been affected by the issue. The Ombudsman has therefore made a new order of compensation that replaces the landlord’s original offer.
Based on the findings above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s approach to the resident’s ongoing overheating concerns. The evidence shows the landlord, contrary to HHSRS, did not respond proactively to reports of a persistent overheating problem. It failed to provide further clarity on the NHBC referral for the period under investigation and remains unclear still. The landlord seems no closer to establishing what the issue is or if anything can be done about it and its responses did not provide the resident with any reassurance or justify its decisions.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy says that stage 1 complaints must be acknowledged by the end of the next working day, and the stage 1 decision should be issued 10 working days from when the complaint case is logged. The policy says the stage 2 complaint escalation should be acknowledged on the same working day, and a decision issued within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says complaints must be acknowledged at stage 1 within 5 working days of being received, and a full response issued within 10 working days of the complaint being received. The Code says complaints escalated to stage 2 must be acknowledged within 5 working days of the complaint being received, and a full response issued within 20 working days of the complaint being received.
The resident first complained to the landlord on 23 June 2022 via Webform and chased a response three times in June and July 2022. On 8 July 2022 the resident contacted this Service for help.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 8 August and again on 27 September 2022, asking it to respond to the resident. Almost a year later, in September 2023 we wrote to the landlord again after the resident had told us he had still not had a reply to his complaint. We have not seen evidence that the landlord ever acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. This is contrary to its complaints policy which says complaints must be acknowledged by the end of the next working day. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 September 2023, 14 months after the resident complained, in breach of its own complaint policy timescales and the Code. It was unacceptable that the resident had to wait over a year for a response to his complaint, particularly as the substantive issue had still not been resolved.
The stage 1 complaint response did not clearly say whether the complaint was upheld or disputed, offered no compensation and made no admission or apology for any service failure. The response referred to interim works but gave no timescales. The response did not align with the landlord’s own policy requiring the response to detail all aspects of the complaint, the outcome of the investigation and next steps including communication plan and timescales. This shows poor complaint handling in the disregard of its own policies.
On 17 April 2024 the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 because of the lack of progress. Instead of progressing to a stage 2 acknowledgement, the landlord issued another stage 1 update on 11 June 2024 concluding stage 1 of the complaint process. This was an unnecessary step that was contrary to section 5.3 of the Code which says complaints processes must have only 2 stages.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord offered compensation of £780, of which £300 was for complaint handling delays. The £300 award was reasonable financial recompense for its failings in the complaint handling time. This reflected the significant delay in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaints, which were well outside the timescales in the landlord’s own complaints policy or the Code.
The stage 2 acknowledgement came almost 3 months after the resident’s request, which was outside of the landlord’s own policy timescales. The response acknowledged that the resident’s complaint was about his flat overheating and outlined some of the actions taken by the landlord. The response did not align with the landlord’s own complaints policy guidelines, in that:
1. no communication plan was set out to keep the resident updated on the progress of his complaint issue.
2. it did not convey any timescales for the work or investigation it was planning to do.
3. it awarded compensation for “evidence of repair failures” but does not give any clarity or detail on what it considered to be failings.
4. it does not say what the landlord has learnt because of its complaint investigation or what it might change in the future to improve its service.
In addition to the above, the apology within the response is considered inadequate. The apology lacked empathy and did not include acceptance of responsibility nor did it express regret within the context of the complaint. Given the extensive delays in the handling of the complaint and the prolonged impact on the residents’ enjoyment of his home, the landlord missed an opportunity within this communication to repair the relationship with the resident and restore his confidence that it was responding appropriately.
Based on the findings above, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the complaint. The complaint response delays, amounting to 15 months in total, were excessive and contrary to both the landlord’s own complaints policy and the Code. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide timely, clear and adequate responses to the resident and did not follow its own policies. The resident has faced considerable delays and was without a resolution to the issue for an unreasonably lengthy period of time, which was unfair.

Record keeping

Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the issues raised, the actions agreed and/or taken and any remaining issues. Good record keeping will help the landlord monitor agreed actions and inform further actions.
As part of its evidence submission to the Ombudsman, the landlord included a repair log for the property. The log shows details of works orders the landlord raised with its direct maintenance team and contractors. It records the date it raised each order, the instructions to the contractor, the request reference and status and completion date.
When reviewing this log, we noted it lacked detail. It was often unclear from the works orders what the status of the repair was. There are no notes to explain the outcome of certain repairs, or if the works were successful in resolving the problem. The log shows numerous jobs as “cancelled” but offers no explanation as to why.
This Service did not have all corresponding works orders or contractor reports available to review for all the related repairs shown on the repair log. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord referred to an order raised to make an opening in the ceiling to allow for a follow up inspection of the insulation. On the repair log the job was marked as complete on 4 July 2023, but in its response the landlord said it did not know if a follow-on appointment with a surveyor was ever arranged. It is concerning that the landlord could not find out from its own records if this inspection was ever completed.
The descriptions noted on the repair log often lack detail and it is not always clear what work they are ordering or the reasons why. It is reasonable to assume that communications took place between the landlord and resident about the repairs, which have either not been documented or have not been provided to the Ombudsman. The lack of detail in the repair logs and missing communication evidence has meant that we could not be fully confident that the full series of events has been considered.
The complaint reference number used by the landlord for the stage 2 response did not match that used at stage 1, despite the responses undoubtedly being related to the same complaint. It is reasonable to assume that parts of this case have crossed over with a second unrelated complaint from the resident, which likely added confusion for the resident and anyone else reviewing the case. This poor record keeping is also likely to have been a factor in progressing the issue reported by the resident in this case.
Section 5.12 of the Code explains a full record must be kept of the complaint, and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties, and any relevant supporting documentation such as reports or surveys. This would also include jobs raised and completed, maintenance records, appointments and contact with the resident. The inconsistencies found in the records show, however, that the landlord has not done this fully.
While we have still been able to investigate the resident’s complaint and arrive at a reasonable conclusion, we have found that the landlord’s inability to provide us with more consistent and full records is a failure in service. An order has therefore been made below for the landlord to improve the way it keeps records where a complaint has been made. This will allow it to evidence all action taken in response.
The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs and complaints. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records shows that its processes are not effective. Based on the findings above, this service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of his property overheating.
2. handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
3. record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,100 in compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is intended to replace the landlord’s original offer of £780, which can be deducted from the total amount if already paid. The compensation breakdown is as follows:
  1. £800 for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of the residents reports of his property overheating.
  2. £300 as previously offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response for the failures in its complaint handling time
2. provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff that acknowledges the range of service, complaint handling and communication failings that occurred. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and a copy should be provided to this Service.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. complete a review of this case, to be shared with us. It should:
  1. identify learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan on how it records information, monitors and responds to complaints.
  2. outline as a minimum what improvements it intends to make to its policy and procedures in recording and monitoring repairs.
2. carry out data logging exercises to record the temperature in the resident’s property during two separate weeks between August and October 2025 and provide the resident and this service with the results. If the results show that temperatures within the property would be classed as a hazard under the HSSRS, the landlord should:
  1. instruct a suitably qualified independent thermal expert to carry out a heat survey to find the cause of the overheating in the property and arrange to complete any recommended actions from the survey.
  2. provide the resident and this Service with a plan of works to resolve the issue, including timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to confirm if the window film has been fitted in line with the resident’s expectations.
As previously recommended in cases 202416766 and 202419554, the landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping and monitoring of repairs to ensure repairs are completed within appropriate timescales and residents are kept informed of progress.
As previously recommended in case 202346173, we recommend that the landlord refer to our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, when reviewing its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords.