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 (202322335)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322335

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 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:
    1. Request for a roof covering to be installed over his car parking space.
    2. Reports of fly tipping and that grounds maintenance was not being carried out.
    3. Reports that the communal door and corridor was causing noise nuisance.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a one-bedroom flat within a block. The resident also has an allocated parking space within a communal carpark which is partially undercover and partially open air. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
  2. The resident’s tenancy started in 2019, and he has been reporting noise nuisance from the sound of the communal door closing and the corridor, items or debris falling onto his car, and fly tipping on the estate since then. On 16 December 2022 the landlord raised a repair for its contractor to inspect the door which he reported as slamming. Its contractor attended on 3 January 2023 but said there was no fault. The resident called the landlord on 21 February 2023 to report the door was still causing nuisance. Its notes say it had attended 2 times, and it said it was the noise a metal door makes when closed by an electromagnet. He called it again on 3 May 2023 and mentioned the noise. He also reported antisocial behaviour (ASB), ongoing fly tipping, and that his car had previously been damaged. He reported the noise from the door and fly tipping again on 19 and 20 June 2023. On 12 July 2023 he made a stage 1 complaint which was about:
    1. The landlord not having covered over his car parking space with a covering or plastic sheet, to prevent objects landing on his car from the balconies above.
    2. His previous car had been damaged, and his new car had been damaged, by children throwing stones and other items at it from the balconies above. He asked for £1,100 compensation for the damage caused.
    3. The noise caused by the communal door, and noise from people using the communal corridor. He wanted the landlord to move the door or soundproof his flat front door.
  3. On 14 July 2023 the landlord raised a collection for fly tipped items. The resident called it on 2 August 2023 about fly tipped items. He emailed it on 8 August 2023 to chase a response to his complaint, and the landlord replied it would chase this for him. The landlord and resident spoke on 14 August 2023, and it emailed him following this. It said it agreed with him that the grass on the estate had not been cut and that it had raised this with its contractor. It also said the carpark structure was as built and would not be covered, but advised he get his own car cover. It said the communal door was fully functional and would not be moved. It also said it was aware of the ongoing issue of fly tipping, was writing to all residents and looking into CCTV. It invited the resident to attend the next estate inspection on 17 August 2023.
  4. The landlord raised and acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 18 August 2023. It emailed him to acknowledge it again on 21 August 2023. On 1 September 2023 the landlord raised a collection for fly tipped waste, and a repair to its contractors to assess the communal doors. It provided its stage 1 response the same day, in which it:
    1. Explained it had previously asked to cover over the parking space, but as it was not a repair, it would need to apply for funding for an estate improvement. It had asked for 2 quotes from contractors so it could look into funding.
    2. Said it regularly sent emails and letters to all residents about ASB and not throwing items from balconies. It committed to sending a further letter. It also said it provided a fob key to the police so they could patrol the estate as part of their regular neighbourhood patrols.
    3. Concluded that the communal door could not be moved and met planning and building control when it was installed. However, it had asked its contractor to see if the door could be adjusted to reduce the level of noise.
    4. Advised that damage to his car could not be considered under its complaints policy. It said he could make a claim to its insurers if he wished and provided their contact details.
  5. On the same day the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said his previous complaints about items dropped from balconies had been closed without investigation. It had not visited as previously promised to discuss this and the noise of the door, which he said was affecting his mental health and sleep. He also said there was fly tipping, it had not installed CCTV, and grounds maintenance was not being done. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 4 September 2023. It raised a collection for fly tipped waste on 7 September 2023 and attended to inspect the communal door again on 13 September 2023. It also carried out an estate inspection with the resident on 25 September 2023.
  6. The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response on 28 September 2023. On 10 October 2023 the resident called it to ask again for CCTV and to report further fly tipping and ASB. It provided its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023, in which it:
    1. Apologised for its delayed response, which it said was due to a backlog of complaints. It offered £260 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
    2. Decided its stage 1 response had been correct. It said it was still looking into funding for an estate improvement, but it did not have the budget and may be able to apply the following year. It again suggested a car cover in the meantime.
    3. Said it appreciated the time and effort the resident had been taking in cleaning the carpark himself and said it would monitor the grounds maintenance service.
    4. Said it would need to undertake a consultation due to the costs involved in installing CCTV.
    5. Confirmed it had inspected the communal door again on 13 September 2023 and the door was operating as it should, with no strange noises.
    6. Offered £260 compensation for time and effort, and £260 for distress caused, offering a total of £780 compensation overall.
  7. The same day the resident emailed the landlord and said he was satisfied with its response and compensation offer, except for its response about the doors. He chased it on 15 November 2023 about installing CCTV. On 20 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said it had not offered him compensation for the noise nuisance from the doors. He said he was still having to carry out grounds maintenance himself. It emailed him on 27 April 2024 to confirm it had installed the CCTV he had requested. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he is still disturbed by the noise from the communal door, and that he can hear people in the corridor through his flat door. He is still cleaning the communal carpark himself, but the landlord has recently started to cut the grass.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a roof covering to be installed over his car parking space

  1. The resident’s allocated space is in the open-air section of the carpark. There are concrete posts and cross beams around the spaces, however, no coverings or roof. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he believes the original design was to have these spaces covered but the landlord did not complete the works. In an email to the resident, it said the carpark was built as per its design.
  2. The landlord is responsible, under its repairs policy, to keep in repair the communal area but the resident’s request is not for a repair but an addition of a covering. Within its stage 1 response the landlord correctly states this, but positively said it was looking into whether it could make an improvement to the estate. It also said it had obtained 2 quotes which was proactive. Within its stage 2 response it explained that it did not have the funding but would consider it the following year. It is not known whether the landlord had further considered the improvement, which it should have.
  3. Within its emails and responses to the resident the landlord suggested he buy and use an individual car cover, which was a reasonable suggestion. Although the resident said this would be inconvenient, it would have provided a level of protection for his car which he said was being damaged by falling or thrown items. The landlord also said it had written to residents to remind them not to throw items from balconies, although it has not provided any evidence of this to this Service.
  4. Ultimately, the landlord is not responsible for providing a covering for all parking spaces in the carpark. It was positive that it did look into whether it could make an estate improvement, and it provided reasonable advice in the interim. While the Ombudsman will recommend the landlord reconsiders whether it can find funding for improvements, there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly tipping and that grounds maintenance was not being carried out

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord agrees to provide, and the resident agrees to pay a service charge for, landscaping, grounds maintenance and bulk waste collection. Within its service charge policy it says it will provide good quality services and ensure value for money. It will “maintain its neighbourhoods to a standard that residents can be proud of” under its estate management policy.
  2. The resident has told the Ombudsman that grounds maintenance has not been undertaken, and the grass has been cut rarely, since 2020. He has informed the landlord on numerous occasions of fly tipped waste and that he has been cleaning the carpark himself. He has provided photographs and videos of this to the landlord and this Service.
  3. The landlord’s records show it has raised several bulk collections for fly tipped waste, in line with its bulk waste policy. It has not provided any evidence that it has try to identify the persons fly tipping which it should have under its policy. In August 2023 it told the resident it would write to all residents, but it has not provided any evidence it did to this Service. It also said it was looking into installing CCTV, as the resident had requested, which was solution focused. It said within its stage 2 response that it needed to carry out a consultation, which was in line with its policy and legal requirements. Positively it did install CCTV.
  4. When the resident raised the issue of lack of grounds maintenance in August 2023 the landlord agreed with him that the grass had not been cut. It said it had raised this with its contractor but has not provided evidence to this Service. Positively, and in line with its policy, it invited him to attend the next estate inspection in August 2023 and inspected with the resident in September 2023. The landlord also thanked the resident for his efforts in maintaining the car park within its stage 2 response. It offered £260 compensation for his time and trouble.
  5. Under its estate management policy the landlord will:
    1. Carry out regular estate inspections to check communal areas are maintained and clean, grass is regularly cut and litter picked.
    2. Monitor progress from outstanding actions from previous inspections.
    3. Review its contractors’ performance.
    4. Display information about estates on noticeboards and publish service standards and cleaning schedules.
  6. The landlord has not provided any evidence of regular inspections or monitoring. It is not clear how often inspections take place, whether service standards are monitored or enforced. There is no evidence of it having cleaned or maintained the carpark. The landlord either did not provide or provided a substandard grounds maintenance service which the resident was paying for through his service charge.
  7. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies. There was maladministration. Although the landlord offered compensation, it has not put things right. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 further compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the communal door and corridor was causing noise nuisance

  1. The resident has reported to the landlord that the noise of the communal door closing caused him nuisance from when he first moved in. He has also reported that he can hear people in the communal corridor talking as they pass, and suspects that they can hear him in the property. There is no suggestion that the noise is being caused by ASB but is the everyday noise caused as people enter and leave the block. The landlord does not have, or has not provided, a policy on noise which is not caused by ASB.
  2. In response to the resident’s reports the landlord attended several times to inspect the communal door. Each time its specialist door contractor reported that there was no fault, or further adjustment possible. The contractor concluded that the noise made was the sound of the metal door closing on the metal doorframe, caused by the electromagnet system in use to lock the door. These types of doors caused a banging sound which cannot be prevented. The resident asked for the door to be moved, or for his front door to be changed to a soundproof door, as a solution. Within its stage 1 response the landlord appropriately explained that it was not able to move the door, which had met building standards and planning when installed. Positively, it raised another repair for its contractor to inspect. It confirmed the outcome within its stage 2 response.
  3. It is not clear whether the landlord had considered whether it could install a different type of flat door for the resident’s property. However, this would be an improvement, and not a repair, which it had no obligation to do. It is also not clear whether such a type of door exists or would solve the issue. There is no evidence that the landlord took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities when considering the issue. There is also no evidence it had due regard or considered any reasonable adjustments, under the Equality Act 2010, but any adjustment would have needed to be reasonable and proportionate. Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered £260 compensation for the distress caused by its failing to consider his vulnerabilities.
  4. While empathising with the resident, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve any repairing issues it was responsible for under its policy and the tenancy agreement. It instructed a specialist door contractor and was entitled to rely on their assessments that the communal door was operating as it should. While it considered the resident’s request to move the door it was entitled to deny this. It failed to consider whether it could install a different type of flat front door, accepted this and offered reasonable compensation. There was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident made his complaint on 12 July 2023. The landlord failed to raise or acknowledge it until 18 August 2023, over one month later. This was despite the resident having chased it for a response. This was a breach of its complaints policy timeframe and paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. Once it logged the complaint it then provided its stage 1 response within its 10-working day timeframe. However, this was 37 working days after he had made his complaint and so was a failing and breach of paragraph 5.1 of the Code. The landlord failed to recognise this within its response.
  2. Within its stage 1 response the landlord said the resident’s complaint about damage to his car was outside of its complaints process, which was correct. It appropriately advised that he could make a claim to its insurers and provided their details in line with its policy.
  3. When the resident asked to escalate his complaint, the landlord acknowledge this within one working day. It provided its response after 48 working days, in breach of its 20-working day policy timeframe and paragraph 5.13 of the Code. However, it did respond within the timeframe set by the Ombudsman when this Service asked it to respond. Within its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £260 compensation for this. However, it failed to recognise its delay at stage 1 and so there was service failure. To reflect the additional time and trouble for the resident, an order has been made that the landlord pay £50 additional compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly tipping and that grounds maintenance was not being carried out.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the communal door and corridor was causing noise nuisance.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a roof covering to be installed over his car parking space.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £450 additional compensation made up of:
      1. £400 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its maladministration.
      2. £50 for the additional time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Provide a schedule of gardening and grounds maintenance to the resident in writing, by email, or by affixing to a communal notice board. The schedule is to set out:
      1. An itemised list of duties that the gardening and cleaning contractors are to perform during each of their visits.
      2. A list of dates each contractor will visit, or state whether weekly, monthly or other frequency of visits.
      3. A way in which residents can report issues with the gardening and grounds maintenance.
    4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Proactively monitor the gardening and grounds maintenance, with emphasis on the communal car park, and robustly raise issues with the contractors when needed.
    2. Invite the resident and/or other residents to become ‘Estate Champions’ as detailed within its estate management policy.
    3. Look into funding for an estate improvement to provide coverings to the existing structures over spaces within the carpark, and keep the resident updated on progress towards this.