From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202306742)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306742

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 May 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 reports of issues with:
    1. the garden paving.
    2. use of the shared garden.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a fixed term assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, since 2017. The property is a ground floor flat with shared use of a garden. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident including asthma and anxiety.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord in May 2022 about an external light in the shared garden not working. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 10 May 2022. It said it had raised a new repair for this.
  3. Later, in July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to express concern that the external light was connected to her electricity, rather than the communal electricity supply. She asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. In response, the landlord said its contractor was due to reattend in August 2022. It said it would review compensation once it had confirmation the external light was wired to the resident’s electricity supply. The resident agreed to this.
  4. Later in August 2022 the contractor confirmed to the landlord that the external light was connected to the resident’s electricity. In September 2022 the landlord discussed the issue internally. It noted:
    1. moving the lighting to the communal supply would involve major work.
    2. a supplement to the resident, if the lighting was to remain on her supply, would be difficult to “manage or quantify” and a separate meter would be better.
    3. it would make a referral to its major works team to connect the external lighting to the communal supply.
  5. In September 2022 the landlord closed the complaint after the resident said she had been told by its officer that she had now been granted sole use of the garden, and so lighting would need to remain connected to her supply. In October 2022 she made a further complaint to the landlord that a garden tap was connected to her personal water supply. She said that, while she had recently been given sole access to the garden, it was “not fair” she had paid the garden tap water usage for the previous 5 years. She asked the landlord to compensate her for this.
  6. On 10 November 2022 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response to her concerns about the water supply to the garden. It said it had been unable to determine whether the garden tap was connected to a communal supply or to the resident’s own. It said it was therefore recommending this tap be disconnected. It offered the resident £100 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
  7. In November and December 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint about the lighting and garden tap issues in the garden. She also said that nothing was being done to stop her neighbour using the garden, and repairs were needed in the garden which could not be completed until her neighbour moved belongings. The resident contacted the landlord again in April 2023. She said she had been told her sole use of the garden had been revoked after her neighbour complained.
  8. In September 2023 the landlord noted it had spoken to the resident and that she wanted to escalate her complaint about the shared garden and costs of electricity and water. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 November 2023. It said:
    1. the resident had now been informed the garden would remain accessible to her neighbour as a shared garden, as stated in the tenancy agreement.
    2. it acknowledged its officer had previously told the resident the garden would be allocated for her sole use, and it was sorry this information was not correct.
    3. its contractor had confirmed the external lighting was attached to the resident’s own supply.
    4. it was prepared to reimburse the resident for the running cost of the lights, which would average £1 per month since the resident moved to the property.
    5. it could then either disconnect the external light or the resident could claim a 50% refund each year of £6.
  9. The landlord addressed the resident’s concern about the water supply in the shared garden. It set out 2 options:
    1. that the resident, as the account holder, contact the water company to establish to which supply the garden tap was connected. It said if the tap was connected to the wrong meter it would work with the water company to correct this.
    2. Alternatively, it could arrange for a plumber to attend to disconnect the garden tap.
  10. The landlord acknowledged its communication with the resident should have been managed more effectively. It also acknowledged the resident’s disappointment and frustration about the garden not being allocated for her sole use. It said it had awarded her compensation of £708, made up of:
    1. £140 for complaint handling delays relating to her concerns about the external light and use of the shared garden.
    2. £240 for complaint handling delays relating to her concerns about the garden tap.
    3. £50 for time and effort in bringing the complaint to its attention.
    4. £100 for the incorrect information about the allocation of the shared garden.
    5. £78 for electricity costs relating to the external lighting.
    6. £100 goodwill gesture relating to the garden tap.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

The garden paving

  1. The resident raised concerns that the garden paving was uneven and causing flooding. Records show the resident raised a repair about broken paving in July 2022 and the landlord subsequently recorded that it had attended to complete this work in September 2022. The resident told the landlord in October 2023 that only part of this work was completed as the operative said they needed more access to the garden. While the resident said this work is still outstanding, we have seen no evidence she raised this specific matter as a formal complaint with the landlord.
  2. Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, this complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If the resident remains concerned about the landlord’s handling of this repair, she may wish to raise a new complaint with it now. If she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint, she may then refer the matter back to the Ombudsman as a new complaint once she has concluded the landlord’s complaints procedure. While we have not investigated the landlord’s handling of garden paving repairs, we have recommended that it contact the resident to arrange to inspect garden paving to understand her concerns about this.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s handling of issues in her shared garden had negatively impacted her health. We acknowledge her comments about this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter which is more appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer. It would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such a claim should she request this

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states she has shared use of the garden. It also sets out the resident’s responsibility to keep the garden tidy and free from rubbish and that she should not store rubbish, furniture or appliances in the garden.
  2. The landlord has a 2–stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days. Its complaints and compensation policy set out its aim to “put things rights” when there has been a failing in service.

Use of the shared garden

Lighting

  1. The resident initially complained to the landlord about the external lighting in the shared garden not working. It took appropriate action to arrange for its contractor to attend. However, following this, the resident raised her concerns that the external light was connected to her own electricity, rather than to a communal supply.
  2. The landlord began steps in August and September 2022 to consider work to connect the external lighting to a communal supply or to provide the resident with the supplement for costs. It then closed the matter after the resident told it that she had been granted sole use of the garden. However, the resident contacted it again in November 2022 requesting that it take action to escalate her concerns. At this time, she said that nothing had been done to stop her neighbour using the garden. While the landlord acknowledged this request, there is no evidence it acted to provide her with a response.  It did not do so even after the resident raised her concerns again in December 2022.
  3. The landlord only acted to provide the resident with a stage 2 complaint response in November 2023, after she made further contact in September 2023. The delay in addressing the resident’s outstanding concerns was a complaint handling failing. It meant the landlord missed an early opportunity to address and resolve the resident’s outstanding concerns.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered to refund electricity charges for the external light since the resident moved to the property. It calculated this using an electricity cost of £1 per month. It said its electrical supervisor had advised this would be the average cost of running the lighting, which were low-cost LED lights. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on information from its electrical supervisor, given it had no evidence from the resident of costs. But the records we have seen show it had consulted its electrical advisor about running costs in September 2022. We have seen no evidence it consulted the electrical supervisor, or anyone else to confirm whether its estimate running costs was still accurate. It should reasonably have done so.
  5. The landlord offered the resident 2 options in respect of the external lighting. That she either making an ongoing claim for 50% of electrical costs or having the lighting disconnected. However, there is no evidence it took any further steps to consider whether it could move the lighting to the communal electricity supply. We acknowledge that the landlord’s contractor had said in August 2022 that this may involve major work. However, prior to closing the case in September 2022, the landlord had noted internally that it should make a referral to its major works team. This was to look at moving the external lighting to the communal supply. But there is no evidence the landlord gave this any consideration when reviewing the matter in November 2023. That was a failing, which meant it did not fully review a third option of moving the external lighting to the communal supply.

Garden tap

  1. The resident complained to the landlord in October 2022 that a garden tap in the shared garden was connected to her own water supply. In its stage 1 response to her complaint, the landlord offered to disconnect the tap and to pay the resident £100 as a goodwill gesture. However, it made very limited efforts to establish to which supply the garden tap was connected. In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses it noted it had contacted the water company to no avail and had been unable to determine whether the water tap was connected to a communal supply or to the resident’s own. 
  2. We have seen record of just 1 attempt the landlord made contact the water company about this matter, in November 2022. At the time the landlord made enquiries about the resident’s water bill on her behalf. Later, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident it would work to resolve the issue if she obtained information from the water company showing the garden tap was connected to the wrong meter. But it should not have placed all the responsibility on the resident.
  3. There was more the landlord could reasonably have done to investigate the resident’s concern. For instance, there is no evidence it even considered whether a communal water meter was in place at the property. Had it established there was a communal water meter, it could then have contacted the water company under that account to help in its enquires about the source of the garden tap. Alternatively, the landlord could have considered arranging for an operative to attend the property to investigate the source of the garden tap. While we acknowledge the landlord offered to disconnect this tap, it largely left the onus on the resident to resolve her concern that it was connected to her water meter. That it did not consider further proactive steps it could take to investigate this issue was a failing.

Allocation of the garden and the resident’s concerns about items stored in the garden

  1. Around September 2022 the landlord told the resident that she had been allocated sole use of the garden. The landlord has since accepted it told the resident this and has apologised that this information was not correct.
  2. We acknowledge that the resident is understandably disappointed that she has not been allocated sole use of the garden. However, shared use of the garden is in line with her tenancy agreement with the landlord. Nonetheless it should have been clear in its communication with the resident to avoid unnecessary confusion and disappointment.
  3. The evidence suggested the landlord did not communicate well with the resident about this matter. It is apparent that in November 2022 she was still unsure what was happening about the garden. She questioned then what was being done to stop her neighbour using it. The following month she wrote to the landlord setting out that she had been told the issue with the use of the garden was “in limbo”. At this time, she asked that the landlord confirm in writing what was happening. But we have seen no evidence it did so. We acknowledge the landlord may have been trying to establish the position with the garden at that point, but it should have responded to the resident to say this. That it did not was a failing. By February 2023 the resident was still unclear about the position with the garden, and whether she had been granted sole use.
  4. It is clear the resident had been made aware by April 2023 that her sole use of the garden had been “revoked” due to concerns raised by her neighbour. But the resident also raised her own concerns at this time that her neighbour was using the garden for storage. Subsequently she raised concerns about items of rubbish in the garden. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response noted that it had established that rubbish was not being left in the garden by her neighbour. That response appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about rubbish. However, it did not address her concern that items were being stored in the garden. It should have done so and set out clearly whether or not it would act on this issue.
  5. As set out earlier, the tenancy agreement states that rubbish, furniture and appliances should not be stored in the garden. That it did not respond to the resident’s concern about items being stored in the garden was a failing which left this issue unresolved. As such we have ordered that it contact the resident to consider her concerns about this.
  6. Overall, we have found failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about use of the shared garden that amount to maladministration. So far it has awarded the resident £278. This was made up of £100 goodwill gesture in respect of the garden tap, £78 for the electricity cost, and £100 for the distress caused by its incorrect information about the resident having sole use of the garden. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered increased compensation. This is aimed at fully recognising the impact of all failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. While its stage 1 response of May 2022 was timely, its response to the resident’s initial complaint about the garden tap was delayed by more than 2 weeks. There is no evidence it communicated to the resident in advance about this delay or apologised for it in its eventual response. That was a complaint handling failing.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her concerns about the shared garden, including issues with the electricity and water supply, on 16 November 2022. It did not provide a response to these concerns for nearly a year, significantly outside its 20-working day target. It is unclear why it did not do so earlier, but it resulted in the resident waiting an unreasonable length of time for a full response to her concerns.
  3. The landlord awarded the resident a total of £430 in respect of its complaint handling failings. With consideration to all the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the level of compensation the landlord awarded in respect of the complaint handling failings was reasonable. However, it should also have explicitly apologised for the lengthy and unreasonable delay in its complaint handling. That it did not do so was a complaint handling failing. We have ordered that it do so.
  4. In July 2023, the Ombudsman published a special report on the landlord, prompted by concerns about its handling of complaints. Following this the landlord implemented a number of changes aimed at improving its complaint handling. We have ordered that the landlord review whether changes it has since made will help to avoid issues which led to the delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint being repeated.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with garden paving is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with use of the shared garden.
    2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. With 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report, and specifically for the unreasonable delays in its complaint handling.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £1,058, made up of:
      1. £250 for failings in its handling of her concerns about whether the garden was for her sole shared and about items stored in the garden. This includes the £100 previously awarded.
      2. £200 for failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the garden tap. This includes the £100 previously awarded.
      3. £100 in respect of failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the external lights.
      4. £78 previously awarded in respect of electricity used to power external lights in the shared garden.
      5. £430 previously awarded in respect of complaint handling failings.
    3. review whether the £78 it awarded for electricity used to power external lighting was an accurate reflection of likely costs. If after this review it finds costs higher than the £78 previously awarded, then it should pay the resident the increased amount.
    4. arrange to investigate whether work can be completed to connect external lights to the communal supply and provide the resident with the outcome of these investigations.
    5. take further reasonable steps to consider how it can establish to which water supply the garden tap is connected and discuss ongoing use with the resident.
    6. contact the resident to review her concerns about items stored in the shared garden by her neighbour.

Recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to arrange to inspect garden paving to understand her concerns about this.