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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202225736)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225736

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

4 April 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s repair requests relating to the doors, heating system and toilets in the property.
    2. The resident’s request for a move on medical grounds.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a house owned by the landlord, a housing association. The landlord is aware the resident is a wheelchair user and has several vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord in September 2022 about its handling of several requests for repair to the doors, radiators, and heating system.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 12 October 2022. It arranged a joint inspection with its surveyor, maintenance supervisor, and neighbourhood services lead to take place on 3 November 2022. It said it would contact the resident with its findings.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 13 June 2023 setting out its position regarding the above issues. In October 2023, we contacted the landlord requesting further action on the complaint following contact with the resident In November 2023, it escalated the complaint to stage 2. In the period that followed the complaint escalation, the resident applied to be added to the landlord’s rehousing list.
  5. On 29 May 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It recognised there were delays in its complaint handling and repairs service which impacted the resident. It confirmed it had written to her on 12 April 2024 to approve her request for a direct offer of rehousing on medical grounds and it would advocate to the local authority on her behalf. It offered her £520 compensation.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred her case to this Service. To resolve the complaint, the resident wants increased compensation and the landlord to rehouse her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the way the landlord handled the issues within the property impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health and illness. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts 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, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, her concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
  2. Following the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident told this Service that it had removed all the adaptations within the property, the boiler keeps breaking down, there are rats in the property, and she had been trapped in the lift. These concerns did not form part of her initial complaint in September 2022. Therefore, we have not assessed them within this case. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond under its internal complaint procedure. It is open for the resident to contact it and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.
  3. In her communications with this Service, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the actions and decisions made by Occupational Therapy (OT). OT acted in the capacity of the local authority. Complaints about a local authority fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. However, we will consider whether the landlord followed its own policies and processes when dealing with repairs that required OT involvement and how it communicated with the resident.
  4. We recognise the resident made several complaints to the landlord throughout her tenancy, concerning problems with the lift and its handling of radiator replacements. The landlord addressed these matters separately, as per its correspondence to the resident dated 16 October 2023. The resident has not referred these complaint responses to this Service.
  5. We have made multiple attempts to contact the resident to discuss her concerns and clarify the definition of the complaint with no avail. As such, based on the information available, this determination concerns the complaint the resident made on 30 September 2022 and the landlord’s consideration of it, up to its stage 2 response dated 29 May 2024.

Repairs

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The tenancy agreement also sets out this requirement.
  2. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that for routine repairs, it aims to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours. For vulnerable residents in general needs and supported housing, it can provide help with minor health and safety repairs that would normally be their responsibility.

Doors

  1. The landlord’s records show it raised a work order on 18 December 2021 for contractors to look at the bedroom and bathroom doors. It explained the resident struggled to get into these rooms using her wheelchair. It asked the contractor to assess and quote for the installation of fire doors and to link them to a fob system or buttons on the wall. It marked the job as complete on 18 January 2022.
  2. The resident chased for an update from the landlord in August 2022. Internal records show the landlord was waiting for another contractor to provide a second quote. In the absence of a second quote, it raised a work order for the initial contractor to do the works. The landlord has not fully evidenced its management and oversight of the works from January to August 2022. This is a shortcoming in its record keeping.
  3. Within the landlord’s internal correspondence dated 10 June 2023, a surveyor said the door openings needed widening to suit wheelchair access. Before progressing, it needed to consult with its fire safety team regarding linking the fire alarm to the doors. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord evidenced that it explained this to the resident on 13 June 2023 and 3 July 2023.
  4. The landlord’s surveyor provided an internal update on the doors on 24 April 2024. They said they were still waiting for advice concerning the fire alarms which they had chased again. They stated they had told the resident a few times to obtain an OT report for the widening of the doors which she had not yet done. The landlord repeated its position in its final complaint response on 29 May 2024.
  5. This Service finds it appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to obtain an OT assessment if she required adaptations to the doors. This is because its major aids and adaption procedure requires an OT referral to consider adaptation requests to doors within the property. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord ought to have made this clear to the resident at the earliest opportunity. We have seen no evidence that it did so. This is an example of the landlord failing to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations.
  6. The landlord has not fully evidenced its communications with the resident regarding the doors. In the timeline of events it submitted to this Service, it stated she called specifically about the doors on 19 December 2022, 27 January 2023, 3 July 2023, and 26 January 2024. However, it has not demonstrated what information it provided on these calls. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events and interactions with the resident. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decisions, in addition to its own staff. The record keeping shortcomings has impacted our consideration of this aspect of the complaint.

Heating system

  1. In September 2022, the resident asked the landlord to replace her boiler as she felt the existing one was not economically viable.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a boiler inspection and confirming the date with the resident beforehand. Records state she refused access to the heating engineer on 12 October 2022.
  3. In June 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it would not replace the boiler as it met the heating and hot water requirements of the property and was only installed in 2017. Further, there were no defects with the appliance as per its most recent gas safety certificate. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence there were any faults with the boiler and notes the landlord offered for its heating contractors to check for any issues. As such, the landlord’s stance was reasonable, considering its need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord.

Toilets

  1. Within the resident’s initial complaint dated 30 September 2022, she said the toilet system was “on its way out”. The landlord raised a work order on 9 January 2023 and marked the job as completed on 16 January 2023. The landlord’s records state contractors found both toilets in the property to be fully operational with no issues. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its contractors when assessing a report of a repair.
  2. While the landlord responded to the resident’s request for repair outside of the timescales set out in its repairs policy, there were no faults identified with the toilets. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds the detriment to the resident here was minimal.

Compensation for repair delays

  1. Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it offered £420 compensation comprising:
    1. £100 for the repair handling delay.
    2. £200 for the time and effort spent by the resident.
    3. £60 for the resident’s distress.
    4. £60 for the resident’s inconvenience.
  2. Our remedies guidance, available on our website, sets out compensation ranges we consider when determining cases. The compensation offered by the landlord falls within our range for complaints where there were failures that adversely affected a resident. As such, the Ombudsman is minded that the landlord offered fair and reasonable compensation to reflect and apologise for the resident’s experience.

Rehousing

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy sets out that to add a resident to its rehousing list, it must meet 1 or more of specific criteria. These include, if a resident or a member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that they are unable to remain in their home. Specified managers would require independently verifiable information before reaching a decision.
  2. Should a resident refuse an offer of permanent accommodation, the landlord will close their case. The landlord will offer residents the opportunity to appeal this decision. A manager who has not been involved in the offer will hear the appeal.
  3. The resident submitted a medical evidence form to the landlord in November 2023. In February 2024, the landlord evidenced that it sent a chaser to the resident asking for supporting medical evidence.
  4. Following receipt of medical evidence, the housing panel heard the case and agreed to add the resident to the rehousing list. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 April 2024 to notify her of the outcome and that it would give her 1 direct offer of suitable accommodation, in line with its independent medical examiner’s recommendations.
  5. The Ombudsman finds the landlord acted in line with its policy when considering the resident’s request for rehousing and communicated effectively with her regarding the outcome and next steps. Further, within its complaint response it agreed to advocate for her with the local authority and provided the direct contact information for her rehousing manager. This was appropriate in the circumstances and demonstrates the landlord was supporting the resident through this process.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The resident initially complained on 30 September 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 October 2022. It escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 November 2023. It issued its stage 2 response 125 working days later on 29 May 2024. The Code serves to illustrate that the landlord kept the resident’s complaint open at stage 2 for an unreasonable duration.
  3. Under our dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised failings, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint responses to improve its complaint handling, communication, and repairs provision.
  4. The landlord offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures. Further, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge and apologise to the resident for the delay responding to the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance to reflect the extent of its shortcomings and the impact its service failures had on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily, with respect to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s repair requests relating to the doors, heating system and toilets in the property.
    2. The associated complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move on medical grounds.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £420 previously offered in compensation for the repair issues and £100 for its handling of the complaint if it has not yet done so. This is total compensation of £520.
  2. The compensation referenced above recognised genuine elements of service failure. The reasonable redress findings are made on the basis that the above compensation is paid to the resident.