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) (202224796)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224796

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 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 handing of the resident’s reports of a repair to a shed.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a property with an external garage/storage shed. The landlord recorded the resident as being vulnerable due to being deaf. Throughout her complaint both the resident and a representative from an advocacy agency were in contact with the landlord. For clarity, this report refers to both the resident and her representative as ‘the resident’.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in September 2021 to report a repair to the roof of the shed. She reported it was leaking. The landlord inspected at the time. Its notes say it needed to look at the deeds to decide if it had a responsibility to repair the shed. It is unclear what action it took at the time, and the repair did not go ahead.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 19 December 2022 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the shed. She said she had been chasing the landlord for an update about the issue throughout 2022, but had no response.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 21 December 2022. It apologised for the delay in progressing with the repair, and it had emailed the relevant team for an update.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 March 2023 and said it had booked the repairs to the shed roof for 17 May 20023. It contacted her again on 17 April 2023 and said as she now had an appointment booked for the repair it was in a position to offer her compensation for the delay. It offered £270 in compensation.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 May 2023 and said it had not attended on 17 May 2023. It is unclear if it responded at the time. The resident contacted it again on 26 June 2023 and said she wanted it to open a stage 2 complaint. She said she was unhappy it had not yet completed the repairs. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time.
  7. The landlord’s contractor inspected the shed in October 2023 and reported the roof was beyond repair and a new roof was needed. It asked for the landlord to do a joint inspection with it to agree the repairs needed.
  8. Following an intervention from us, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 6 November 2023 and said:
    1. It gave a history of the repairs, outlining it had been on notice since September 2021.
    2. It had approved a quote from its contractor in October 2023 and had asked it to arrange the repair as soon as possible.
    3. It apologised for the delay in progressing the repair, and said it repairs communications should have been better.
    4. It made an increased offer of £520 in compensation for its handling of the repairs, and £80 for its “poor complaint handling”.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The resident contacted us on 1 December 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the shed repairs. She said she was unhappy the landlord had not offered compensation for personal possessions damaged, as a result of its handling of the repair.
  2. The landlord completed the roof repair in February 2024. It made an offer of £240 in compensation for the further delay, and a £20 shopping voucher for a missed appointment.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in April 2024 and said the roof repair was finished but it had not repaired the broken windows or reinstated the electrics inside the shed.
  4. The landlord attended to inspect the electrics on 16 June 2024. The notes from its inspection state this was not works it was responsible for completing and the resident would need to arrange for their own installation of electrics in the shed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint she said she was unhappy the landlord had not offered compensation for damage to her possessions. She claimed this was caused by its failure to repair the shed roof. Our Scheme says we can only investigate matters that have exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. We have seen no evidence the resident raised this concern as part of her complaint. As such, we cannot investigate the landlord’s response to her claims about damage to her possessions.
  2. We recommend the landlord pass on its liability insurer’s details to the resident now, if it has a liability insurer, so she can raise a claim if she wants to. Matters of insurance fall outside the complaints process and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. We cannot comment on the insurer’s actions if a claim is made to it, or the likely outcome of such a claim.
  3. The landlord issued its final complaint response in November 2023. At the time of its stage 2 response the repairs raised in the complaint were outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of a repair to a shed

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord first inspected the shed in September 2021, but did not follow up on its initial visit. This was unreasonable and inconvenienced the resident. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to raise a complaint in order to get the landlord to progress with the repairs.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked the appropriate level of detail about its handling of the repair. We welcome the fact it accepted its handling of the repairs was poor. However, the lack of detail and learning shows was inappropriate. The landlord missed an opportunity to show learning and build trust with the resident. It was inappropriate it did not set out when it hoped to progress with the repairs. The resident was inconvenienced by not knowing when it hoped to progress with the matter.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord offered the resident compensation, In April 2024, to reflect the delay once it had booked the repairs. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it sought to offer compensation in recognition of the delay.
  5. The repair did not go ahead in May 2023, and the resident was inconvenienced by its lack of communication about the delays. The evidence shows the landlord’s contractor decided the roof needed replacing, and asked the landlord to complete a joint visit with it. We have seen no evidence it communicated with the resident about the further delays. This was unreasonable and caused her a further inconvenience.
  6. The evidence shows the repair was more complex than first thought. This evidently contributed to the delay in the repairs being completed. However, the landlord was not proactive in progressing with the repair during 2023, and did not complete its joint inspection with the contractor until October 2023, 5 months after it had initially said it would repair the roof. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave a detailed history of the repair, and set out the latest position on the repair. This went some way to putting right the lack of detail and learning in its stage 1 response. The landlord also sought to reassure the resident it was progressing with the repair as soon as possible. This was appropriate, but it was a shortcoming in its response it did not give an indicative timeframe for the repairs.
  8. The landlord completed the roof repairs in February 2024. We welcome the fact it made an increased compensation offer in recognition of the further delay. This was appropriate and evidence the landlord sought to put things right for the resident.
  9. The resident raised concerns the landlord had not reinstated the electrics after the roof repair in April 2024. The evidence shows the landlord attended in June 2024. This was within its 28 day target timeframe. We note the landlord decided it was a repair it was responsible for. We have seen no evidence the landlord communicated its position to the resident. We recommend it does so now.
  10. We also note the resident raised a concern about a repair to the window of the shed in April 2024. We have seen no evidence the landlord was put on notice about this repair until the email of April 2024. As such we do not consider a repair raised during the complaints process and the landlord’s handling of the window repair is not within the scope of this investigation. If it has not already completed the repair, we recommend the landlord write to the resident setting out when it plans to complete the repair to the shed window.
  11. Our remedies guidance sets out that orders between £600 and £1,000 may appropriate to put things right where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The evidence shows the landlord offered a total of £790 in compensation in recognition of the errors in its handling of the shed repairs. Considering all the circumstances of the case we have decided this offer was appropriate to put things right for the resident. If it has not already done so, we recommend the landlord pays the resident this compensation now.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlord must send stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord send its stage 1 complaint response within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in June 2023 and expressed clear dissatisfaction with its ongoing handling of the substantive issues in the complaint. It was unreasonable that it did not open a stage 2 complaint investigation at the time. The Code states “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. That it did not do so is evidence it operated a hard to access complaints process.
  4. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from this Service, in October 2023, in order to get the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint investigation.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 5 months after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the substantive issue. This was an unreasonable delay and a failing in its complaint handling. We welcome the fact it apologised for the delay and offered compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, its response lacked learning about the complaint handling delays. This was a shortcoming in its response and it missed an opportunity to show learning and build trust with the resident.
  6. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where they may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. Considering the circumstances of this case we have decided the landlord’s offer of £80 for the delay in its complaint handling was reasonable and put things right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the shed.
  2. In accordance with 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord:
    1. Shares details of how the resident can make a claim with its liability insurer for damage to her possessions if it has one.
    2. Pay the resident the £790 in compensation it offered for errors in its handling of the repairs to the shed. And the £80 it offered for its complaint handling if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.
    3. Write to the setting out its position on the electrics and window repairs.