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 (L&Q) (202213195)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213195

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 April 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 reports of repairs to communal doors and safety concerns.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured short hold tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat with her daughter. Her landlord is a housing association.
  2. In March 2021 the resident complained about faults with the main communal entrance door, including the door slamming loudly and the intercom buzzer not working. She also raised similar issues relating to the communal entrance door for the north block where she lives. The landlord acknowledged the issues and completed a number of repairs. The main communal entrance door was replaced in October 2021.
  3. On 14 October 2022 the landlord issued a response to the complaint made in March 2021. It apologised to the resident for not advising her that they had closed the complaint. The response acknowledged the repairs completed to date and listed outstanding repairs to be scheduled. It also stated that new issues should be reported as normal.
  4. On 3 January 2023 the resident raised a new complaint about faults with both communal entrance doors. She reported that she asked for both doors to be repaired but the landlord only repaired one door. She also stated “now both doors are slamming, and the buzzer is not working. People are accessing the building and behaving suspiciously outside my door”.
  5. On 15 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about a door repair that had taken place the day before. The resident advised that this had only lasted a few hours and the door was not closing again. She also requested an update on the complaint she made on 3 January 2023. The landlord responded the next day confirming that the contractor had been recalled to fix the door and that her complaint update request had been passed to the complaint officer.
  6. On 11 April 2023 the landlord issued the stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint dated 3 January 2023. This response:
    1. noted the current repair issues and apologised for service failing.
    2. reviewed the contractor actions to date and raised new job for repairs completion.
    3. escalated her complaint to stage 2, as requested by the resident.
  7. In January 2024 the landlord responded to the following repair reports:
    1. a report on 24 January 2024 stating that the main communal entrance door would not open. This issue was recognised as a serious health and safety risk as this door provided the only way in or out of the building. This door repair was raised as an emergency repair and completed within 24 hours.
    2. a report on 31 January 2024 from another resident stating that the communal entrance door would not close. The resident was concerned about this because there were young children living in the building.
  8. On 2 February 2024 the landlord issued the stage 2 response to the complaint dated 3 January 2023. The landlord:
    1. offered an apology for repair delays, backlogs and lack of communication.
    2. gave details of repair works completed to date and works outstanding.
    3. acknowledged an incident where an abusive ex-partner of the resident had accessed the building and said compensation would be offered for this.
    4. apologised for communication delays and for the resident having to chase the landlord for the complaint response.
    5. offered the resident a total of £410 compensation for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience and delay. It advised that this would be deducted from any existing arrears.
    6. advised of improvements to customer service following this complaint. It also advised that staff involved would receive relevant training and that learning from this case would be shared with all managers.
  9. The landlord replaced the north block door in April 2024 following the stage 2 response. In May 2024 the resident reported that the door was still not working correctly and was locking people in and out. When the resident approached us, she said the problems with the doors were still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that information has been provided by the landlord and the resident relating to the complaint made in March 2021. This complaint was concluded at stage 1, on 14 October 2022. Information has also been provided by the resident and the landlord about communal door entry faults that occurred after the stage 2 complaint response dated 2 February 2024. These issues have also not been addressed as part of the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  2. Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In the interests of fairness therefore this investigation will only focus on the issues relating to the complaint of 3 January 2023 that have progressed fully through the landlord’s complaint procedures.

The landlord’s handling of repair reports and safety concerns

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement defines “insecure external window, door or lock” and “door entry phone” as urgent /emergency repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home, including external doors. It defines emergency repairs as issues where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public. The response timescale for emergency repairs is 24 hours. The timescale for response to routine repairs is 25 days.
  3. The landlord has a compensation policy which allows for compensation in a range of circumstances including discretionary compensation where the landlord’s mistake or failure causes a customer distress and inconvenience and/or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting us to put things right.
  4. The resident’s complaint on 3 January 2023 stated:
    1. The landlord had only completed repairs on 1 door, but she had reported issues with 2 doors. 
    2. Following the repair now both doors were slamming and now buzzer was not working.
    3. People were walking into the block and acting suspiciously outside her door.
  5. The resident then contacted the landlord on 15 February 2023 about a communal entrance door repair that had been completed by the landlord the previous day. It is reasonable to assume that the repair completed on the 14 February 2023 was related to the complaint she raised on the 3 January 2023. Nevertheless, she advised that a repair to the main communal entrance door the previous day that had only worked for a couple of hours and the door would not close again. The landlord promptly responded the next day confirming that it had asked the contractor to re–attend to complete the repair.
  6. Records confirm that the landlord did not complete the door repair until 15 days later on 1 March 2023. This repair was completed within the landlord’s timescale for routine repairs of 25 days. While residents have their own front door that restricts access to their property it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acted more quickly following reports of strangers entering the building
  7. It is understandable however that residents may feel anxious when communal entrance doors are not secure and allow general access to the building. Records confirm that another resident on 31 January 2024 raised similar security concerns when again the main communal front door was not closing. Records show an email from the landlord to the contractor on 16 February 2024 chasing that outstanding repair. In the email the landlord refers to ‘multiple reports on social media at that time of people accessing the building’ due to the communal entrance door not closing.
  8. It is recognised that faults to door entry systems can occur for a variety of reasons, wear and tear, vandalism, improper use, ineffective repairs. It would be unrealistic to expect a landlord to be able to prevent faults occurring. It would however be reasonable to expect a landlord to provide timely response according to procedure and where delays happen to communicate with residents regarding the progress of repairs and expect contractors to provide quality repairs that reduce need for call back. Communication to residents when communal door faults occurred appeared to be in response to individual queries only as opposed to a proactive informative approach.
  9. The stage 1 complaint response dated 11 April 2023 accepted service failing relating to repairs and delays and offered an apology. It stated that a job had been raised to the contractor to try and resolve the issues the resident had been experiencing.
  10. The complaint however did not address the residents concern about people walking into the block and acting suspiciously. Although the complaint lacked specific detail such as times and dates of when people were entering the building it still however raised awareness of this issue occurring. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to recognise the resident’s concerns and to inform residents how and when to report security concerns and what action it would take in response to these reports.
  11. Repair logs show a report on 24 January 2024 of the main communal front door not opening. The records show that this was raised by the landlord as an emergency repair and completed within 24 hours. This door is the only way in and out of building and therefore the door not opening was a serious safety risk. In line the landlord’s repair procedure, where immediate risk to occupants or the public is identified, the landlord appropriately addressed this risk.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also does not address the residents concern raised in her stage 1 complaint about people entering the building. It does however acknowledge an incident where the resident’s abusive ex–partner was able to enter the building. It offered compensation in recognition of distress and inconvenience this caused and apologised.
  13. The stage 2 complaint response also noted:
    1. Repair works completed to date and works that scheduled to address.
    2. Offered the resident £80 compensation for time and trouble and £240 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
    3. It advised that compensation would be deducted from any existing arrears.
  14. According to the landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure, it should have kept the resident informed of the progress of her repair and provided updates on when the works would be completed. The landlord did not follow its procedure to communicate with the resident and this contributed to her frustration. The landlord did acknowledge in the stage 2 response that her enquiries should have been managed more effectively and apologised to the resident for delays in response due to backlogs.
  15. The landlord’s compensation guidance details the range of circumstances in which financial compensation can be offered. It can offer discretionary compensation when ‘our mistake or failure causes a customer distress and inconvenience and/or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting us to put things right.’ £80 compensation was offered to the resident for time and trouble and £240 for distress and inconvenience. We do not consider the amount the landlord offered for distress and inconvenience fully reflects the impact on the resident given her vulnerabilities and the fact there was also a young child in the property. Further compensation of £140 is appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance which says aggravating factors (such as a resident with young children) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident to take account of this level of distress.
  16. It is noted that the resident has stated that the problems with the doors are still ongoing. We have made an order for the landlord to arrange a new inspection of the affected communal doors by an independent contractor and for them to recommend works to fully resolve the issues. The landlord should then carry out these works within 8 weeks. If it decides not to do so it should write to the resident and us with an explanation for that decision.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint’s policy at the time of the resident’s complaint complied with the requirements set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (The Code) as it includes:
    1. a 2-stage complaint process.
    2. a specified acknowledgement timeframe of 5 working days
    3. stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
    4. extension requests in agreement with the resident and of no more than working 10 days unless in exceptional circumstances.
  2. Throughout the complaint handling process there were a number of failings:  
    1. the resident did not receive an acknowledgement for her stage 1 or stage 2 complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy and The Code state that’s acknowledgement should be issued within 5 working days of receipt.
    2. the landlord’s response to both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints was delayed:
      1. on 16 February 2023 the resident specifically requested an update on her stage 1 complaint made 03 January 2023. There is no evidence to confirm if any update was provided nor did the landlord request an extension when it was clear that stage 1 response timescales would not be met. The stage 1 response was not issued until 11 April 2023. This was a delay of 31 working days.
      2. the stage 2 request was escalated on 07 April 2023 but was not responded to until 02 February, an unacceptable delay of 192 working days.
  3. The landlord did not provide the resident with reasons for the complaint handling delays in either of the complaint responses. As such, the landlord was not open and transparent and failed to take accountability for the delays, which would be expected as part of effective complaint handling. This was not reasonable. The resident was entitled to explanations for the delays, and the failure to do so would have caused the resident frustration.
  4. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the resident “had to chase this complaint several times” and acknowledged the distress and frustration caused by the lack of communication. The landlord offered the resident £90 compensation for this delay. This landlord’s compensation policy does not provide guidance as to how much compensation is proportionate in specific circumstances, it allows for discretionary compensation. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the compensation offered was not proportionate to the excessive stage 2 delay.
  5. Compensation should also have been considered for the delay to stage 1 and the overall complaint handling failings. By failing to provide complaint acknowledgement, make extension requests when delays to response timescales became apparent and provide updates to the resident regarding progress of complaint responses the landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy. In addition, the failure to provide reasons for the delay in the complaint responses further compounded the resident’s frustration.
  6. It is recognised that the landlord advised of learning from the complaint. It advised that staff involved would receive relevant training and that learning from this case would be shared with all managers and that the customer experience should improve. The Code requires landlords to look beyond the individual circumstances of a complaint and consider whether service improvements can be made as a result of learning from the complaint and the landlord has demonstrated this.
  7. Overall, given the cumulative failings identified, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling due to the number of procedural failings identified. In line with our remedy’s guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £160 for this maladministration. This is in addition to the £90 offered in its stage 2 response.
  8. If the resident wants the landlord to investigate her complaints about current communal door faults she may submit a new stage 1 complaint. The landlord should investigate the complaint in line with its complaints policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of faults related to communal entrance doors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. pay the resident a total of £300 compensation, made up of:
      1. an additional £140 for distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of communal entrance door repair reports.
      2. an additional £160 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its complaint handling.
    2. provide a written apology to the resident that acknowledges the range of complaint handling failings that occurred.
    3. arrange a new inspection of the affected communal doors by an independent contractor and for them to recommend works to fully resolve the issues. The landlord should then carry out these works within 8 weeks. If it decides not to do so it should write to the resident and us with an explanation for that decision.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord
    1. Complete a review of communication processes to ensure proactive, timely and informative updates are provided to all residents when faults are identified that affect the proper functioning and security of communal entrance doors.