London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202347245)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347245

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 January 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:
1. Repairs to the communal door and door entry system.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a lease holder of a flat within a house consisting of 3 flats, owned by the landlord.
The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident. The resident states she has disabilities. She has lupus and suffers with the effects of 3 previous strokes and requires the use of crutches for movement which she has informed the landlord of.
On 8 March 2023, the communal entrance door was damaged by the police while attempting forced entry into the building for an incident unrelated to the resident. She reported the damage to the landlord and asked for the communal door and the door entrance system to be repaired.
The resident complained to the landlord on 20 April 2023. She was dissatisfied that the repair remained outstanding.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response the next day, it provided responses regarding the length of time the repair would take and the steps it would be taking. It upheld the complaint but offered no compensation.
Between the stage 1 response of 21 April 2023 and February 2024 the communal door and entrance system remained unrepaired. On 21 February 2024, the landlord issued a further response to the resident’s complaint, without specifying what stage it was at, and apologised for the delay. It offered £290 in compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 March 2024 as she was not happy with the offer of compensation and the door repair was still outstanding.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response dated 4 May 2024 and provided responses regarding the time taken, the actions it had taken, and the effects on the resident’s vulnerabilities. It increased the offer of compensation to £400.
The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as she remains dissatisfied that the communal door and entrance system repair remains outstanding and is unhappy with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concerns about the impact the situation has had on her health and wellbeing. Although the Ombudsman can consider the impact that the issues raised have had on her and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court.
In her complaint to the landlord the resident said she wanted to make a complaint that it had given her personal telephone number to its contractors without her consent.
This is not a matter which the Ombudsman can consider. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigates complaints about an organisation’s handling of personal data. The ICO is an independent body set up to uphold information rights. It has the power to investigate data breaches, to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she can raise a complaint with the ICO on its website.
The resident has in her complaint raised issues regarding the cost of the replacement of the door and door entry system. The landlord stated in correspondence to her that the costs fall under the Section 20 procedure. The Ombudsman cannot make a binding decision on complaints about the level of or increase to service charges or determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. Under paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, we may not investigate complaints which concern the level of service charge or its increase. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Should the landlord contact the resident regarding an increase to the service charge she would be advised to seek legal advice in relation to how to proceed with those issues.

The communal door

Section 4.1 of the landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home including external doors and common entrance ways. It will ensure that consultation is conducted in line with Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 when a communal repair or necessary improvement work is expected to cost more than £250 per home.
The landlord’s website shows that it aims to conduct emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repairs records show that on 8 March 2023, it raised a repair to make safe a glass communal door after police made a forced entry. Its records show works completed but do not specify what works had taken place.
In her complaint of 20 April 2023, the resident said the landlord had taken 6 weeks to repair the door and had given a date of 3 May 2023 to secure it. She was frustrated it had not given her a date to replace the door as there were vulnerable residents in the building.
In its stage 1 response the next day, the landlord said that it had reviewed the communal repairs history. It could see the communal front entry door was first reported as forced entry by the police on 8 March 2023, was attended to on the same day to be made safe and it requested that a new front door be fitted. Its records showed the repair was in its extended repairs queue and but due to the volumes of the repairs there may be a wait of up to 6 months. It had raised a repair to temporarily secure the door/lock and asked if that could be brought forward. It had also requested for the renewal of the front door to be expedited. It would monitor the complaint.
On the same day, the landlord confirmed it could bring the appointment to secure the door/lock forward to 25 April 2023. It informed the resident of the change of date. This was a positive step taken by the landlord.
The landlord’s records show on 28 April 2023 it had reviewed the resident’s complaint following the repair of 25 April 2023. It established it was to replace the electric door release but stated the resident had paid for the installation. As the release mechanism was only operated by her flat, it concluded she would be responsible for it would be her responsibility.
To clarify its position to the resident, the landlord on 2 May 2023, asked a staff member to contact the resident regarding permission for the door release. It had to be removed, and a home improvement form completed before she installed again.
On 3 May 2023, the landlord’s records show it could see an order going back to 2016 under communal works for a 2–button call tone buzzer to be fitted but no door release. Later that day, it noted after speaking to the resident that she had stated that the door release system was put in place during major refurbishment around 2006 and was part of an adaptations request from an occupational therapist at the time. She said she was not liable to pay the costs for replacement due to it being installed when she was a general needs tenant and not the leaseholder. She had asked if a new intercom system could be installed, which would allow all residents of the unit to be able to have the system which worked from their own individual flats.
The landlord informed the resident, on 22 May 2023, that the repairs were with the extended repairs team. Once the order was raised, the new door would be installed. In relation to the door release it was waiting for an update from the area supervisor as it did not seem to have any contract for maintenance and usually with intercom/door release systems they were under contract.
The resident chased the landlord for the repairs on 23 May 2023. She said it was unsafe as the lock was changed but the 5-lever mortice lock was not replaced. This meant anyone could push the door hard, and it would open. She said she was unable to sleep at night as she was afraid that someone would break into her property, or the police would come and breakdown the communal door. Her not being able to open the communal door from inside her property was affecting her disability and health. That was why it had put in the door release latch when she was a tenant under adaptations paid for by the Council.
The landlord at this stage, if not before, was aware the resident was stating the door release system was installed due to her disabilities. It should have considered her comments about the effect the lack of the door release facility was having on her while the repair was outstanding. There is no evidence it did so.
Equally concerning is the landlord has stated to the Ombudsman in its evidence that the resident has no vulnerabilities despite her making it clear to it in her correspondence that she did. It has provided no evidence it contacted her in relation to her comments about the impact on her.
On 24 May 2023, the landlord noted an inspection was not going to determine who installed the release catch. It is clear at this stage it was not sure what the situation was regarding the door release system, and this indicates a record keeping failure by the landlord.
The resident has stated to the Ombudsman that the landlord had originally installed an intercom system that she had upgraded within her own property to enable her to use her phone to unlock the communal door.
The landlord reiterated to the resident, on 13 June 2023, that she would be contacted as soon as there was an appointment booked in in relation to the door release, it was waiting for a response from an area supervisor. It was unsure which contractor it should be using but once the new door was in place it would be installed. It is positive that it had now confirmed to the resident after a 3–month wait, that the door release would be replaced. However, the time taken to reach that conclusion was not reasonable.
The landlord’s records the next day however show it was unsure who agreed for the door to be replaced. It said photographs showed the damages were repairable. Its records are not clear why there was a contradiction in its findings.
The resident asked the landlord on 20 June 2023 whether the communal door would be put back to its original state when it was installed. She wanted to replace the letter box holder as she could not bend down to collect her mail. The damaged slow closing door hinge needed replacement as the door banged loudly. She also asked that the new contractors install a door release catch on the communal door so that she was able to open it from inside her property using her mobile phone, as before the issues. Further, she asked that the new door would not contain glass as she did not want to be at risk of it being broken again, and no glass panels would make it a more secure door.
The landlord responded on 3 July 2023, stating that the contractors would contact her directly to arrange an inspection of the front door. It said the door release system would be passed onto the building services team to arrange installation after the door repairs or replacement.
At this stage, the landlord was still trying to determine if the door required repairing or replacement. This was despite its previous comments and commitments to the resident and would have added to the distress and inconvenience felt by her and prolonged the time taken to achieve a resolution.
The resident chased the landlord for the works again on 29 August 2023 and it responded on 6 September 2023. It stated that the contractors were having difficulty getting hold of her to arrange the appointment. This prompted the resident to respond the next day disputing its response. She said that was an excuse as the contractors had twice texted her phone as they could not attend the property to complete the repairs because their van had broken down. She stated she was not the only person living in the building and as it was a communal door it could contact the other residents if she was not available.
Following further chase ups, the landlord’s records show it completed additional works to secure the door on 15 December 2023. The records are not clear about the nature of works done. The resident recontacted it on 18 December 2023, asking for an update of her complaint and the replacement of the communal door. She repeated her concerns regarding being vulnerable at her property as the main communal door was not very secure and anyone could easily gain access.
The landlord responded to the resident the same day and said it was waiting for approval for the quote for the replacement door from its panel. It would update her once it heard from the panel. It could see the emergency repair raised on 15 December 2023 and acknowledged that she might not feel safe with the broken door but stated that her property’s front door had adequate locks.
The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 18 January 2024 and concluded the door and frame were old and with the damage from the previous year, it was not secure. They would be recommending a new door set with a new intercom system for all flats within the block. However, that would be subject to estate improvement and fell into the section 20 procedure as the resident was a leaseholder. It would complete the section 20 form with the recommended works.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 February 2024 with the update regarding the surveyor’s findings and the need for a Section 20 procedure. It had submitted the relevant documentation, and a decision was due shortly. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the repairs, it offered £290 compensation, based on the length of time it took it to resolve the issue and for her time and effort in contacting it.
On 17 May 2024, the landlord’s Section 20 (S.20) team had concluded the observation period for stage 1 of the consultation process. It would move to stage 2 and obtain at least 2 like-for-like quotations from its contractors before moving forward.
The landlord informed the resident on 21 May 2024 that it was still investigating her complaint, but its contractor was due to attend the next day to fix a mortice lock to the door.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said the resident had complained on 21 April 2023 about the time taken to repair the communal door and that the door was not properly secure. She was also unable to open the door from within her home as the door release latch was broken and affecting her health and disability. She was unhappy with the lack of communication from a neighbourhood housing lead. It said it sent its stage 1 response to her complaint on 21 February 2024 and apologised for the delays to her complaint process. It had made the following findings:
1. It made safe the door when initially reported. It explained a new door was requested, the panel process and that quotes were in the process of being obtained. It appreciated it had taken a long time to get to that point but needed to make her aware that there were no timescales given for that request process.
2. It apologised for the time taken to get the front door changed and said it understood the anxiety and inconvenience that caused. It was changing the door in line with its policy and could not expediate it.
3. While she was waiting for the conclusion of the panel process and the fitting of the new door, all jobs to make the door as safe and secure as possible should be raised as they would usually.
4. There were no flags around any additional requirements due to medical needs on record for her and she could complete a Service Adjustment Needs form online or contact her Neighbourhood Housing Lead for this. That may give her priority for some repairs in the future where relevant and allowed it to best support her needs.
5. It reoffered the £290 offered at stage 1, an additional £90 for distress for its failure to recognise the impact due to her vulnerabilities, and an additional £20 for the time and effort to get the complaint resolved. This was a total offer of £400.
Although the stage 2 response did explain the process the landlord had to go through and the progress it had made, it failed to suitably explain why the process had taken the time that it had reach that stage or when she would reasonably expect further progress. It is unacceptable that over the course of more than 14 months, the evidence provided does not substantiate the reasons given by it for its delay to repair or replace the communal entrance door and entrance system. The offer of £380 for its handling of the repair was not sufficient given the time taken, lack of communication and consideration of the impact on the resident.
The response also stated it had no flags around the requirements due to the resident’s medical needs. This was despite the resident making it clear to it in her correspondence since at least May 2023 the issues were directly affecting her health and disabilities. There is no evidence the landlord discussed those with her. This was not acceptable.
The landlord’s records show the S.20 stage 2 letters had been sent to residents on 20 August 2024. The observation period was due to end on 13 August 2024. If it received no objections, it would approve the works. The resident informed this Service in January 2025 that the repairs remained uncompleted.
Overall, although it is acknowledged the replacement of a communal entrance door is a significant repair and will take time to be completed, the Ombudsman has seen little evidence to conclude with certainty that the landlord’s delay at the time the stage 2 response was issued of 14 months to repair the communal entrance door, is justified. Its failure to complete the repair would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Given her property is located on the ground floor and her stated disabilities, it was reasonable for her to be concerned about her safety.
The landlord has also not evidenced that it took steps to keep the resident sufficiently updated of its progress, any challenges it was facing or what it was doing to repair the door. This caused her to ask it for updates on several separate occasions.
The landlord has not evidenced that it learnt from the complaint process or that its process or procedures improved as a result. The issue remains unresolved much beyond the stage 2 response.
The landlord has not shown it has decided on the works it may carry out regarding the door entrance system. Once it reaches a decision and communicates that to the resident, if she is unhappy with its decision she can consider if she wishes to raise a new complaint regarding that matter.

The handling of the complaint

In its stage 2 response dated 4 May 2024, the landlord incorrectly stated the resident had made her complaint on 21 April 2023, and it had provided the stage 1 response on 21 February 2024.
The evidence is clear the resident made her complaint on 20 April 2023. The landlord provided a clear stage 1 response the next day on 21 April 2023. The complaint reference in that stage 1 response was the same complaint reference number as the stage 2 response. It also incorrectly dated the stage 2 response.
On 20 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for the delays in resolving her formal complaint. It said this was due to high demand in its complaints service, it was taking it longer to respond to her than its standard response time. It however failed to inform her of when she would expect the response to be issued or when it would next contact her to give her any timescales for a response.
Furthermore, the landlord did not make it clear to the resident if the response it issued on 21 February 2024 was a formal complaint response despite it making an offer of compensation to her. The email itself did not refer to it being a response to a complaint or offer the resident any escalation guidance or details of the Ombudsman. Considering the lapse of time since her original complaint, it may have been best for it to consider her escalation request as a fresh complaint and fully assessed its actions in the matter. The confusion in its later responses indicates that the delays had created some confusion in the complaint process.
The landlord’s records show it escalated the resident’s complaint on 27 March 2024 as she had stated she was not happy with the offer of compensation and the door repair was still outstanding. It issued a letter to her on 8 May 2024 apologising for the delay in responding to her complaint. The letter informed her it would issue the stage 2 response by 6 June 2024.
The landlord dated its stage 2 response as 4 May 2024. However, the contents of the letter refer to events after 4 May 2024 and the evidence provided shows those events did take place after 4 May 2024 indicating the landlord incorrectly dated the stage 2 letter.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was below reasonable standards and included significant errors. The response at stage 2 was issued beyond the timescales of its complaint policy. Its offer of £20 for its handling of the complaint was not sufficient given the delays of at least 262 working days in her receiving the stage 2 response and the previously mentioned confusion in its responses during stage 1 of the complaint process. The landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint are maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the communal door and door entry system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report to the resident.
2. Pay the resident the total sum £800 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repair to the communal door, this includes the £380 it has already offered.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint including the £20 it offered at stage 2.
3. Clarify the final position of the S.20 consultation to the resident. Consequently, it should provide her with an action plan of how it intends to repair or replace the communal entrance door, and the proposed timescales involved. If it is unsure of an estimated completion, it should consider what security measures it has or needs to put in place for the building in the interim.
4. Contact the resident to ensure it has her vulnerabilities and disabilities recorded on its systems.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping practices specifically for its complaint handling to ensure that it is maintaining accurate and information.