London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202318995)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318995

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 June 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 the resident’s:
1. reports of repairs to:
  1. the bedroom wardrobe.
  2. the communal door handle and entry system.
2. reports of pests in the building and the condition of the bin room.
3. enquiry about rent.
4. associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured fixed term tenant since 22 April 2023. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat with another tenant.
On 2 May 2023 the resident told the landlord a wardrobe was broken in the property and it needed to be replaced. On 9 May 2023 the landlord arranged to repair the wardrobe, and the resident reiterated that it needed to be replaced. The resident made no reports about the communal door, bin room, or pests prior to complaining on 27 July 2023.
In the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 27 July 2023 they said:
1. there had been a delay to replace the wardrobe.
2. the communal door handle and entry system had not been fixed.
3. the landlord had not investigated the condition of the bin room and pests in the building.
4. because of the issues listed above, they did not want their rent increased.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 July 2023, and on 19 October 2023 provided its stage 1 response. The landlord:
1. apologised for the delay to replace the wardrobe.
2. said an inspection of the bin room found it was in good condition, and that a contractor fixed the communal doors.
3. said the report of pests was under investigation.
4. apologised it had not followed its complaint handling policies.
5. offered £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay replacing the wardrobe, its poor communication, and its failure to ensure the communal doors worked.
6. offered £100 for the time and effort it took the resident to raise these issues, and £50 for its complaint handling. This was a total of £300.
On 19 November 2023 the resident said they disagreed with the landlord’s stage 1 response. They said the communal door was not fixed, and the landlord had not deterred pests by closing holes in their boiler cupboard. On 28 November 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process.
On 13 December 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
1. it had not correctly investigated the communal door when the resident reported a problem with it.
2. it replaced the wardrobe and apologised for the communication issues that had caused delay.
3. the condition of the bin room varied between collections, and it arranged for the caretaker to complete regular inspections.
4. it arranged to inspect the resident’s property for pests.
5. it had not communicated effectively during the complaint journey and apologised for this.
6. it had revisited the offer it made at stage 1 and offered a total of £700, broken down as follows:
  1. £260 for its poor complaint handling and the time and effort involved to resolve the complaint.
  2. £440 for the impact, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the loss of a communal service and facilities
The resident contacted this Service on 29 August 2023 about the wardrobe delivery, pests, communal bins, their rent enquiry, and the landlord’s complaint handling. They confirmed on 7 July 2024 and 11 June 2025, that the complaint included the delay to repair the communal door. To resolve the complaint, the resident said they want the pest issue resolved and, because of the issues experienced, they do not want their rent increased.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of rent, the increase of rent, or if rent may increase in the future. This is usually a matter of law and likely suited for the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

The wardrobe

It is important to maintain a robust record of contact and repair reports. This is because clear, accurate, and accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify, respond, and track problems from when they arise to completion. The landlord failed to maintain adequate records for the events complained about, and this has made it difficult to assess.
The landlord’s repair policy says:
1. it may provide and maintain additional items, like a fitted wardrobe, if included in the tenancy agreement inventory.
2. it will take an average of 25 calendar days to complete routine repairs.
The resident’s complaint is about the delay and communications to replace a wardrobe. There is no evidence the landlord agreed for the wardrobe to be provided as part of the tenancy. It was therefore not obligated to maintain and replace it.
The resident said they told the landlord about a broken wardrobe when they moved to the property on 22 April 2023. The landlord recorded this as a request to repair the wardrobe on 2 May 2023. However, there is no evidence of when the resident requested a wardrobe replacement or of the landlord’s records to repair it. This has made it difficult to assess and is a failure of the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9, 10, and 18 May 2023 about the wardrobe. They expressed frustration that they had not heard back from it. The resident and landlord spoke about the wardrobe repair on 24 May 2023.
It is unclear what the landlord’s timescales are to acknowledge a resident’s report of a repair. It would have been fair to consider the circumstances and acknowledge the request within a reasonable period. It had taken over 3 weeks since it recorded the repair to respond to the resident, and this was after they chased the landlord about it. The delay was unreasonable.
Following the call between the landlord and resident on 24 May 2023, the resident sent a follow-up email. The resident provided wardrobe measurements to the landlord, and asked they provide a similar sized replacement. They confirmed they would not be at the property again until 15 June 2023.
The landlord replied to the resident on 25 May 2023. It said it would provide wardrobe replacement options to the resident and arrange the wardrobe delivery on their return on 15 June 2023. The landlord was not obligated to maintain the wardrobe. It therefore was a fair discretionary decision that it opted to replace the wardrobe.
The landlord contacted the resident with wardrobe options on 15 June 2023 when they returned to the property. This was reasonable as it had kept to its commitment to update them by this date.
After the resident and landlord discussed wardrobe options, the resident confirmed their preferred wardrobe replacement on 20 June 2023. The landlord replied to the resident on 27 June 2023 to confirm it had placed the order for the wardrobe and that it would keep the resident updated. This was reasonable.
On 18 July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to explain that the wardrobe was out of stock. However, stock issues were not within its control and therefore it was not directly responsible for this delay to replace the wardrobe.
On 21 and 25 July 2023 the resident told the landlord they were unhappy with the delay to replace the wardrobe and having to chase the landlord about it.
The landlord next updated the resident on 26 July 2023. It apologised for its miscommunication on 27 June 2023 that it would keep them updated about the wardrobe replacement. It said the supplier should have kept them updated.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have updated the resident or had oversight of the updates from the supplier to the resident. The fact it had not kept the resident updated was a failure of its service and caused distress and inconvenience to them.
The landlord updated the resident on 2 August 2023 that the supplier would replace the wardrobe on 3 August 2023. It was reasonable that it had contacted the supplier and confirmed the delivery date.
In summary, the landlord’s record keeping has made it difficult to understand when the request to replace the wardrobe was made and some of its communication with the resident about this. The landlord had made the fair discretionary decision to replace the wardrobe, but there had been delays doing this, some of which were outside of its control. It also had not replied within a reasonable time to the resident’s initial request and had not kept them updated about the delivery. This caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The landlord provided its final response on 13 December 2023 and apologised for the communication issues and delays when it arranged the wardrobe delivery. However, it had not explained how it would prevent these failures reoccurring in the future.

The communal door handle and entry system

In the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 27 July 2023 they reported the communal door handle was broken, and did not lock.
The landlord’s repair policy says:
1. it is responsible for repairs to communal doors and entrance systems.
2. it will take 24 hours to complete emergency repairs that pose immediate danger, and it will make the situation ‘safe’ where a report is outside of its working hours.
The landlord said that it found the communal door entry system was working on 28 September 2023. It said prior to this there was a problem with the doors opening, which it fixed. There is no evidence of this repair visit. This has made it difficult to understand the detail of the problem with the entry system, how it was remedied, and when this happened. This is a failure of the landlord’s record keeping.
On 30 October 2023 the landlord sent a contractor to repair the door handle. This was an appropriate action, although it had taken 95 calendar days to repair the handle. This exceeded the landlord’s average timescale of 25 days to complete repairs. This was inappropriate and not in line with its repair policy.
On 19 November and 3 December 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the communal entry system was still not working. They said strangers could walk into the property. They also said, “I found a person looking through our mail and opening all the boxes and then wandering around and it is just scary”. The resident said they were distressed due to the entry system issue and the risk they were exposed to.
The landlord acknowledged in its final response on 13 December 2023 that it had not arranged to repair the door entry system when it was first raised. It said it was waiting for approval to repair the issue.
The landlord had not considered the risk to the resident and determined how quickly it should repair the communal door entry. It had taken over 4 months to acknowledge a repair was needed, which was inappropriate and not in line with its repair policy. The delay put the residents at risk of entry from unauthorised people. The landlord had not explained how it would learn from this to better understand the urgency of a situation and prevent repair delays.
After the landlord provided its final response to the resident, the evidence shows it repaired the communal door on 18 June 2024.

Summary of repairs

In the landlord’s complaint responses, it apologised for the communication issues and delays to arrange a repair to the communal door entry system and to replace the bedroom wardrobe. It offered the resident a total of £440 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers whether the offer of redress and commitments to remedy issues, have been in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s apology for the delays and £440 compensation offered to the resident can be said to have recognised some of the distress and inconvenience caused because of its failures. But the landlord had not explained to the resident what lessons it had learnt and how it would prevent these issues happening again in the future.
Considering this, we find there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. We would have found maladministration had the landlord not taken action to recognise and remedy the wardrobe replacement and repair to the communal door in its complaint responses.
Taking account of our remedies guidance, the offer of £440 the landlord offered to the resident is fair to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to them for the landlord’s handling of the wardrobe replacement and repairs to the communal door. It should pay this to the resident, if it has not done so already.
The landlord should write to the resident to explain the lessons it learnt from the delays and communication issues with these repairs and how it will prevent them happening again in the future.

The pests in the building and condition of the bin room

The landlord’s repair policy says:
1. it is responsible for pest deterrents such as mice, fleas, and pigeons.
2. it is responsible for the clearance of rubbish from the bin store.
The landlord’s pest policy says:
1. tenants are encouraged to help the landlord identify causes of pests and, where they identify holes, these should be blocked.
2. tenants can seal holes around existing pipework with coarse grade stainless wire wool and caulking.
3. it is responsible to deal with pests in communal areas, including bin stores.
The landlord’s repair policy and pest policy does not set out how long it would take to respond and remedy reports of pests. It would be reasonable for the landlord to consider the circumstances of individual reports and respond within a reasonable period.
In the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 27 July 2023 they reported mice in the communal spaces of the building, and that the unsanitary condition of the bin room attracted pests.
The landlord provided this Service a further email from the resident where they raised concern of mice in the walls of their boiler cupboard and asked for the holes to be covered. The date of this additional email has not been provided. This had made it difficult to understand at what point this was raised and is a failure of the landlord’s record keeping.
There is no evidence of actions the landlord had taken, until it sent its stage 1 response. It said in its stage 1 response that it checked the bin room on 28 September 2023 and found it was in a satisfactory condition. It was reasonable to inspect the condition of the bin room to see if it needed pest deterrents, although it had taken 2 months to do so. The delay to inspect the bin room was unreasonable.
The landlord also said in its stage 1 response that it would arrange a pest inspection of the resident’s property. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 November and 3 December 2023, as the landlord had not updated them about the property inspection. They said the bin room was still not in a good condition and that holes in their boiler cupboard had not been resolved.
The landlord had not arranged to inspect the resident’s property as it committed to do. It also had not updated them about when to expect the inspection, and the resident had to chase the landlord about it. Its inaction and delay to inspect the property was unreasonable.
The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 13 December 2023. It said it would arrange for regular inspections of the bin room, although it had not confirmed whether it had inspected the bin room again, since the resident raised further concerns of its condition. This was unreasonable.
The landlord said it arranged for the inspection of the resident’s property, which had taken place on 13 December 2023. The contractor was unaware of areas of concern in the property, such as the holes in the boiler cupboard.
The pest policy confirms the resident can block holes in the property, and the repair policy confirms the landlord is responsible to deter pests. There is no evidence the landlord supported the resident to fill holes in the boiler cupboard to help deter pests. These failures were inappropriate and not in line with its pest policy. It had also taken 4 months to inspect the resident’s property which was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer redress where it does not follow its policies and guidelines, and where its mistake causes distress and inconvenience. It had not offered compensation to the resident for its handling of their report of pests in the building.
Since the landlord’s final response to the resident, it evidenced droppings in the resident’s bathroom on 29 January 2024. It also communicated with residents about pigeon infestations and had internally recognised its responsibility to deter pests. The resident told this Service that the holes reported in the boiler cupboard have still not been filled.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it had not:
1. recognised the delay to inspect pests in the property, to further inspect the bin room, and had not recognised its lack of updates to the resident about this.
2. recognised it had not kept to its policy to deter pests.
3. learnt lessons from its failings and explained to the resident how it would prevent this happening again.
4. apologised for these failures or offered redress to recognise them.
Considering the reasons listed above, we find there has been maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of pests in the building and the condition of the bin room.
Considering our remedies guidance, the landlord should:
1. arrange a pest inspection of the bin room and property and set out a plan of action to complete any recommended work within a reasonable timeframe. The inspection should include whether the holes in the boiler cupboard could be filled, if not already completed, to deter pests.
2. pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the building.

Enquiry about rent

In the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 27 July 2023, they said due to the issues they had encountered, such as pests and repair delays, they asked the landlord not to increase their rent in the future.
There is no timeframe set out in the landlord’s policies about when a resident should expect a reply to an enquiry.
On 3 December 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction that their rent enquiry had not been answered and requested the details of the relevant team.
The landlord chose to incorporate the resident’s complaint about rent in its final response on 13 December 2023. It provided the breakdown of rent outlined in the tenancy agreement, and provided details of the team the resident could contact about it. It was reasonable to provide the information the resident requested. However, it was unreasonable it had taken over 4 months to do so.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it had not recognised the delay to provide information to the resident about their rent and the details of the landlord’s team that could answer further questions about it.
The resident confirmed with this Service on 12 June 2025 that the rent had not increased and therefore there had not been monetary impact.
Considering the delay to respond to the resident about their rent enquiry we find there has been a service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s enquiry.
Taking account of our remedies guidance, the landlord should write to the resident to apologise for the delay to provide contact details to answer the resident’s rent enquiry. It should provide a response to the resident about their rent enquiry, if it has not done so already.

The associated complaint

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in place when the resident raised their complaint, landlords must ensure they had:
1. acknowledged a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days.
2. responded to the complaint within 10 working days.
  1. if an extension was needed, it communicated the timescale to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
3. If the resident requested a stage 2 response, the landlord should provide the final response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
  1. if an extension was needed, it explains this to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. if it needs a longer extension, both parties should agree it.
The landlord’s policy at the time of the complaint was aligned with the Code.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 27 July 2023. It had until 2 August 2023 to acknowledge it. It acknowledged the complaint on 28 July 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its complaint policy and the Code. It had until 10 August 2023 to provide the stage 1 response.
The resident contacted this Service on 29 August 2023, as they had not received a response from the landlord. There is no evidence the landlord agreed an extension to provide its response to the resident. This was inappropriate.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 19 October 2023. This was more than 2 months since the complaint was made and after the resident felt they had to involve this Service. This was inappropriate and not in line with its complaint policies and the Code.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 19 November 2023. The landlord had until 17 December 2023 to provide its stage 2 response or confirm an extension. The landlord provided the stage 2 response on 13 December 2023. This was reasonable and in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
In summary, the landlord took 2 months before answering the resident’s complaint at stage 1. The delay was inappropriate and not in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
In the complaint responses, the landlord recognised and apologised for its poor complaint handling. It offered £260 for this, although it had not explained how it had learnt from this to prevent it happening again in the future.
Considering, the above, we find that there has been service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
After careful consideration of our remedies guidance, the landlord’s offer of £260 is in line with our guidance. This should be paid to the resident, if the landlord has not already done so. It should also write to the resident to explain what lessons it learnt and how it will prevent this happening again in the future. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report for repairs to the communal door entry system, and replacement of the bedroom wardrobe.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent enquiry.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to:
  1. apologise for the failures set out in this report.
  2. explain the lessons it learnt and how it will prevent them happening again in the future.
  3. provide a response about the resident’s rent enquiry, if it has not done so already.
  4. arrange a pest inspection of the bin room and property and set out a schedule of works to complete any recommended work within a reasonable timeframe. The inspection should include whether the holes in the boiler cupboard could be filled, if not already completed, to deter pests. The inspection report and any action plan should be provided to the resident and this Service.
2. pay the resident a total of £900, broken down as follows:
  1. £440 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its handling of repairs, if this has not already been paid to the resident.
  2. £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the building.
  3. £260 to recognise the distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling failures, if this has not already been paid to the resident.