London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202335259)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335259

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 July 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. Reports about the conduct of its contractor’s operative.
   2. Reports of required repairs to the boiler.
   3. Enquiries about rent arrears.

Background

2. At the time of the resident’s complaint, she was an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom apartment where she lived with her daughter. She moved to another property owned by the same landlord in March 2025. The landlord, a housing association, owns both properties and is aware of the resident’s mental health concerns and vulnerabilities.
3. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 November 2023. She said that her boiler required repair and when its contractor’s operative attended, they assaulted her.
4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 December 2023. It said it was “shocked” by the events and confirmed it would provide support, along with her own support worker. It said it would not discuss the assault as it was a matter for the police and its contractor. It arranged for its in-house gas operative to repair the boiler, which it completed on 12 December 2023. It offered £244 compensation comprising:
   1. £60 for time and effort.
   2. £50 for distress.
   3. £50 for inconvenience.
   4. £28 for loss of heating.
   5. £56 for loss of hot water.
5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 17 December 2023. She declined its compensation offer stating her boiler issues had been ongoing since January 2023. She referred to a similar incident relating to its contractor’s conduct in January 2023 and believed the complaints to be linked. She asked it to reinvestigate the previous matters. She added that she still had outstanding boiler repairs. She also raised concerns about her rent account on 5 January 2024.
6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 January 2024. It said it was aware there was further work required to the boiler pressure and a radiator, and it would arrange this. It offered to increase its compensation offer by £28 as she disputed the length of time she was without heating. This brought its total compensation offer to £272. It empathised that the incident with the operative would have been distressing and encouraged her to report the matter to the police and the contractor if she wished to pursue this further. It said that its contractor had dealt with the operatives accordingly at the time. It provided an explanation of the rent account and apologised for any confusion.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She did not believe that it fully investigated her concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. In the resident’s correspondence she said that the situation had caused distress, anxiety, and affected her and her daughter’s mental health.
9. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed 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 over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any distress or inconvenience likely caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Reports about the conduct of its contractor’s operative

10. The resident complained to the landlord by telephone on 29 November 2023. Its records of the call say that she phoned to report boiler issues. She stated that its contractor sent an operative who was not an “allocated engineer,” and they assaulted her. It advised her to contact the police but noted she was reluctant to do so. It provided an email address for the contractor as she also wanted to raise a complaint with them.
11. The advice given by the landlord to contact the police was appropriate. An assault is a criminal offence and would require an investigation by the police. It is not our role to investigate the events of the alleged assault. Our role is to consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and whether its response was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
12. The landlord’s records of 4 December 2023 state that its contractor was investigating the incident. It referred to the resident being in fear that the operative may return. It discussed with her the possibility of moving to alternative accommodation and arranged to repair the chain lock on her door. This demonstrated that it listened to her concerns.
13. The same day the landlord wrote to the contractor acknowledging that it was investigating and asked them to confirm that they would write to the resident with the outcome. While it was appropriate for the contractor to investigate the conduct of their operative, it should have considered asking them to provide their findings. This would have enabled it to provide its complaint response to the resident directly. It confirmed that it was dealing with the boiler repair and no further attendance would be required from them. This was appropriate given the nature of the reported incident and to prevent the operative returning to the resident’s home.
14. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 December 2023 confirming she was aware of the ongoing investigation by the contractor. She also confirmed that she had complaints with both the landlord and contractor. In its response, the landlord said that it had not investigated as the matter was passed to its contractor to complete their in-house investigation. It said it had no communication regarding the investigation. It would have been helpful if it had liaised with its contractor on her behalf as she had no direct relationship with them.
15. The landlord also stated that it understood that no formal complaint had been raised by the resident to the police about the assault. However, on 5 December 2023 it spoke with the resident’s support worker who confirmed that a case had been raised to the police. We have not seen any evidence to confirm the outcome of the police or contractor’s investigations.
16. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it was “truly shocked” by the events and it was supporting the resident as best it could to get the right outcome for her. It also understood that her support worker was helping her. It said it would not discuss the events that happened in relation to the assault as it understood this would sit with the police and with its contractor.
17. The landlord’s response was dismissive and not appropriate. We appreciate that the landlord would not have been able to investigate its contractor’s staff members and that an assault is a criminal matter for the police. However, the resident’s complaint was about a company providing a service on its behalf. It would, therefore, have been appropriate to have obtained the contractor’s investigation findings and provided its own response to the resident. It could also have considered liaising with the police to inform its response.
18. The landlord’s handling of the matter was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Paragraph 5.4 states that where a landlord’s complaint response is handled by a third party (for example a contractor) at any stage, it must form part of the 2-stage complaints process set out in the Code. Residents must not be expected to go through 2 complaint processes. Paragraph 5.5 also states that landlords are responsible for ensuring that any third parties handle complaints in line with the Code.
19. In her escalation request the resident referred to a previous incident with a contractor in January 2023. This resulted in her purchasing a ring doorbell for security. The landlord’s records of 21 December 2023 referred to a conversation with the resident where it explained that it would not reinvestigate the matter as it was over 6 months prior. This was appropriate as the previous incident did not relate to this complaint. However, it could have considered what additional help it may have been able to offer such as referring her to victim support.
20. The landlord’s records of 4 January 2024 state that it reviewed the video footage provided by the resident, and took appropriate action which it could not disclose. It confirmed that the contractor was no longer under contract and the assault was a matter for the police. It referred to it being a “personal matter” for the resident to take up with its contractor. As stated previously, this approach was not appropriate or in line with the Code.
21. In its stage 2 response the landlord reiterated it would not reinvestigate the previous incident from January 2023. It also noted that the complaint was not escalated at the time. Given the time that had elapsed since the previous incident, its response was appropriate. It was also in line with the Code in place at the time which states that a landlord may exclude complaints where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over six months ago.
22. The landlord acknowledged the severity of the incident, empathised that this had caused distress, and said it was sorry for what happened. This showed empathy for the resident’s experience. It reiterated its advice to contact the police but again told the resident to contact its contractor if she wished to pursue the matter further. As stated previously its approach was not appropriate. It could have explained that it reviewed the video footage and confirmed it had taken action even it was unable to disclose this.
23. However, the landlord confirmed that both operatives who attended the resident’s home had been dealt with by its contractor at the time. It said that they had taken necessary actions to address the situation. It explained that it was unable to disclose any further information due to GDPR regulations. Its response was appropriate as any actions taken against the individuals would be subject to its contractor’s internal procedures. It would not have been appropriate to disclose any action taken or the outcome.
24. The landlord confirmed that the contractor was no longer working on its behalf and a new contractor had taken over responsibility for any heating/hot water-related issues. This is a positive response and would likely have provided some reassurance to the resident.
25. In summary, we empathise that the incident would likely have caused alarm and distress to the resident. We recognise that the landlord’s contractor would have had to investigate the matter but it initially failed to co-ordinate her complaint and respond appropriately in line with the Code. It also failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint.
26. We have made a finding of service failure and have made an order to pay £100 compensation for the identified failings. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for where there has been a failing and the landlord has not acknowledged this or attempted to put things right.

Reports of required repairs to the boiler

27. It is not disputed that there were delays in completing repairs to the resident’s boiler. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
28. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to its repairs records. This has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. Our assessment of the case has therefore relied on the available evidence.
29. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s home on 29 November 2023. They failed to complete the boiler repair due to the incident set out above.
30. The landlord’s records of 4 December 2023 referred to the resident being “clearly distressed” due to having no heating or hot water. It confirmed that an alternative contractor was attending that day to see if it could get the boiler working and to deliver temporary heaters. This was appropriate in the circumstances. It spoke with the resident the following day and she confirmed that her boiler was working.
31. The landlord also noted that its own engineers would attend the following week to fit a new part. While we are unaware of how long the resident had been without heating and hot water at this point, it was 6 calendar days from when the original engineer attended on 29 November 2023. While it did not complete repairs within its 24-hour repairs policy timescale, it did provide temporary heaters.
32. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that following the incident with its previous contractor, it arranged for its own in-house gas operative to fix the boiler. It completed repairs on 12 December 2023. It apologised for the delay and offered £244 compensation. It calculated the loss of heating at 14 days and loss of hot water for 28 days. It also offered compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble as set out above. It told the resident that if she had any rent arrears, the payment would be credited to her rent account.
33. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the loss of heating and hot water and offer redress. Its offer was in line with its compensation policy and our range of awards for when there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident. Its assertion that it would credit the resident’s rent account was also in line with its compensation policy for payment methods.
34. In the resident’s escalation request she rejected the landlord’s compensation offer stating its response was incorrect. She said she first reported her boiler in January 2023 and she complained about the matter at the time.
35. The landlord’s records of 4 January 2024 show that it explained its reasons for not considering the resident’s previous boiler complaint. It noted that she queried the compensation amount and said it should be 28 days for both the heating and hot water. It said that it would check the dates. This was appropriate but it should have been aware from its own records when she first reported no heating and hot water and when it completed the repair.
36. Further records of the same date referred to its operatives attending on 12 December 2023 to fit a new part. Its contractor was also asked to look at the boiler pressure when attending to complete the annual gas safety check in January 2024. Its records show that it made enquiries about the length of time she had been without heating and hot water as it had promised to do.
37. The resident repeated that she had experienced boiler issues since January 2023 in a communication on 5 January 2024. We have seen no evidence to suggest that the boiler was not working from January 2023 to November 2023. She added that its gas engineer who attended the safety check, said that the boiler should not still be losing pressure and they were ordering a new part.
38. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it acknowledged the resident’s assertion that she reported heating and hot water issues on 23 January 2023. It said that the complaint was not escalated at the time and it was outside its complaint policy timeframe. It noted that there has been no complaints or reports of repairs since January 2023 until her recent report and complaint in November 2023. Its response was reasonable and demonstrates that it investigated its repairs history. It was also in line with the Code at the time.
39. The landlord explained that it investigated the recent issues with the boiler and compensated her accordingly. It acknowledged that its contractor had identified further work required to the boiler during the gas safety check. It said it would arrange to complete the work. This was reasonable and demonstrates that its contractor completed the inspection requested.
40. The landlord said that it offered £244 compensation for distress, inconvenience, and loss of service. It noted that the compensation offered for loss of heating was 14 days. As she disputed this, stating it was 28 days, it offered to increase the loss of heating by a further 14 days and award an additional £28. This brought its total compensation offer to £272. Its offer to increase the compensation was reasonable and demonstrated that it listened to the resident.
41. The landlord noted that the resident had declined its compensation offer but said this had been credited to her rent account. It said this was in line with its standard operating policy which says it will award compensation to customers even if they choose not to accept it, following a stage 2 complaint.
42. In summary, the landlord’s apology, completion of repairs, and compensation offer were appropriate. It got the boiler working within 6 calendar days and provided temporary heaters. It also kept the resident informed of when it would complete repairs. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Enquiries about rent arrears

43. The date of the resident’s complaint about her rent account is unknown. However, she raised concerns to the landlord on 5 January 2024. She said she received an email on 30 November 2023 alleging she was in arrears. It took until 4 January 2024 for it to acknowledge its mistake.
44. As this was a new matter, and unrelated to her previous complaint on 29 November 2023, the landlord should have raised a separate complaint. However, as it provided a response at stage 2 of its complaint process, we have considered this matter.
45. The evidence shows that the landlord sent a rent statement on 30 November 2023 and asked the resident to arrange to clear her arrears. It spoke with her on 1 December 2023 explaining that the arrears were due to Universal Credit (UC) not paying the full rent charge.
46. The landlord spoke with the resident again on 18 December 2023 to discuss arrears of £343.58. It again explained that due to the shortfall in payments this had generated its arrears letter. It wrote further on 4 January 2024 advising that there were 5 weeks UC payments due and there were no arrears on her account. This is contradictory to its previous communication and would likely have caused confusion to the resident. It offered to send a further rent statement and once received, it would go through it with the resident. Its offer was reasonable and shows that it was listening to her concerns.
47. The landlord’s records show a further conversation with the resident on 8 January 2024. She referred to rechargeable repairs and said she had been told these would be disregarded. It disputed that it had advised this. She also queried where the £244 adjustment had come from on her rent account as she had not agreed to the compensation payment (as set out above regarding the boiler repairs).
48. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that the resident’s account was in arrears by £938.92. This comprised £638.32 rent arrears and £300 for rechargeable repairs. The evidence shows that the recharges related to 4 lock changes due to the resident losing her keys. This was in line with its repairs policy which states that it may recharge for repairs which are not its responsibility.
49. The landlord confirmed that the resident had spoken with its money support officer on 4 January 2024 who confirmed there were no outstanding arrears. They discussed the rent arrears which, after UC payments and compensation, cleared the account. It acknowledged it could have communicated more clearly to avoid any confusion and had raised this with its money support officers to avoid confusion in the future. It was appropriate to acknowledge that it could have communicated more clearly and demonstrates learning from the complaint.
50. In its response, the landlord said that the £244 compensation for the boiler repair had been credited to her rent account despite the resident’s refusal to accept its offer. It explained that this was in line with its standard operating policy. It acknowledged that the compensation was processed and credited to her account, week commencing 25 December 2023, before it sent its stage 2 response. While the landlord’s actions were in line with its compensation policy, it was not reasonable to credit her rent account prior to providing its stage 2 response or notifying her. This clearly caused confusion for the resident about her rent account. That said, its apology for the confusion and distress was appropriate.
51. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident continued to dispute her rent account. It continued to respond to her queries and offered a face-to-face visit which she declined. The resident acknowledged that the compensation payment had cleared her arrears. It also “wrote off” the £300 repairs recharges, which was a positive action to take.
52. In summary, while we acknowledge the landlord’s communications were confusing, its apology and “write off” of the £300 recharge was reasonable. We have, therefore, made a finding of no maladministration. We have made a recommendation in relation to the crediting of rent accounts prior to issuing its complaint responses.

Determination

53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of its contractor’s staff.
54. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of required repairs to the boiler.
55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about her rent account.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

56. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears, the sum of £100 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of her reports about it contractor’s conduct.
    2. Send a written apology for the failings identified in this report.

Recommendations

57. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays to the resident the sum of £272, if not already paid. (If the additional £28 offered in its stage 2 response has not been paid, this should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears).
58. The landlord should consider how it applies its compensation offers, particularly where it decides to credit resident accounts. It should ensure that its 2-stage complaint responses are sent prior to doing so to avoid confusion.