London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202229424)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202229424
London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)
19 March 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:
- Service charges relating to repairs to communal lights and pest control.
- The resident’s report of damage having been caused to her satellite dish by its contractors.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is the shared ownership leaseholder of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat within a block. The landlord is a housing association.
- Between 1 and 25 March 2019 the resident and the landlord exchanged emails about repairs to external communal lighting. The resident reported an issue with how the lights operated following a repair. The landlord raised a new repair, the contractor re-attended, but the resident said the issue had not been resolved. It then raised another repair and confirmed to the resident that she “will not be charged for any further visits from [the contractor] in regards to the same issue.” The resident emailed it on 14 January 2020 to query the final service charge statement for the 2018 to 2019 financial year. She said some charges for the communal lights should not have been included, as it had told her previously there would be no charge for reattendances.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 29 July 2021 to query a charge for pest control on the final charges statement for the 2019 to 2020 financial year, which she said she had not been consulted on. The landlord replied on 5 November 2021 but did not respond to this point, and the resident raised it again on 19 November 2021. The landlord replied on 25 January 2022 and said it would refund £7 as it had charged over the £250 per resident it could without having carried out a section 20 consultation.
- On 18 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that its contractors had moved her satellite dish when they put up and took down scaffolding. She asked how to make a claim for the cost of realignment. Between 25 October 2022 and 15 November 2022 the resident chased the landlord and provided a receipt for the realignment. It replied that it had passed her claim onto the contractors, had asked them to investigate and respond.
- Between 6 and 9 January 2023 the landlord and the resident exchanged emails about service charge arrears. The resident disputed the arrears and said the landlord had not responded to her service charge queries. On 5 February 2023 she emailed it to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
- Having been incorrectly charged for repairs to the communal lights. She said she had queried this and not received a reply.
- Having been charged £257 for pest control without being consulted. She had received a £7 refund but believed the whole amount should have been refunded.
- Her claim for reimbursement for her satellite dish realignment had not been replied to or paid.
- Not having received responses from its service charge team despite her having tried to resolve the issues since 2019.
- The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 20 June 2023 to ask it to provide its stage 1 response by 28 June 2023. It emailed the resident the following day to acknowledge her complaint. She emailed it on 4 July 2023 and asked to escalate her complaint, as it had not responded. The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 3 August 2023 and asked it again to provide a response. The following day the resident asked again to escalate her complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 August 2023, in which it:
- Apologised for its delay in response.
- Said the 4 communal lighting repairs the resident queried were for different repairs and so were all chargeable.
- Explained it had already apologised for charging £257 without consultation, and that it had refunded £7.
- Apologised that its service “fell short of acceptable standards” and offered £100 compensation for service failure, time and effort.
- Said the resident had already asked to escalate her complaint and asked her to confirm if she still wished to and her reasons for this.
- On 9 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord with her reasons for wanting to escalate her complaint. She said it had not considered the emails regarding the communal lighting charges, had been wrong in law about the pest control charge, had not responded to her complaint about her satellite dish, and raised a new service charge issue. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 14 August 2023 and the Ombudsman asked it to provide its response on 11 September 2023. It provided its stage 2 response on 15 September 2023, in which it:
- Repeated that its charges for communal lighting were separate repairs and all chargeable.
- Explained that it should have completed a section 20 consultation where charges will be more than £250 per resident, rather than £100 as the resident had claimed.
- Said her new query about a different charge on the 2018 to 2019 service charge statement had been made out of time. It said she had had 6 months to raise the issue under section 22 Landlord and Tenant Act 1975 (sic).
- Accepted that it had previously told her it would raise a claim for her satellite dish with its contractor. However, the member of staff involved no longer worked for it and so it did not have any records. It would however reimburse her as a gesture of goodwill.
- Apologised for not providing timely updates and for its poor communication.
- Offered £290 compensation, in addition to the £100 paid at stage 1, made up of:
- £100 for time and trouble.
- £90 reimbursement for cost of realigning the satellite dish.
- £60 for not responding fully at stage 1.
- £40 for delays to its stage 2 response.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s handling of service charges relating to repairs to communal lights and pest control
- The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s lease, however, it is not disputed that the resident pays a variable service charge under her lease and that the landlord can charge for communal repairs and pest control. Under its service charge policy, the landlord will estimate the costs for the financial year in advance based on the previous year’s costs. It will then issue a statement of actual charges following the end of the financial year to variable service charge payers, to show whether a credit or debt is owed.
- When the resident raised her query about communal lighting charges, on the 2018 to 2019 statement of charges, on 14 January 2020 there is no evidence the landlord replied, which was a failing. When she pursued the issue in January 2023, she told it that it had not responded to her query, which led to her stage 1 complaint. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the charges queried were for 4 different repairs. It said its records show it had recalled its contractor on other repairs for which it had not charged. The landlord has not provided these records to this Service.
- The resident has provided copies of emails between her and the landlord from 2019 about the lighting repairs. In an internal email on 7 February 2023 the landlord said it had no access to these emails, as the member of staff involved had left the landlord’s employment. This is a knowledge and information management failing. The email trail suggests that 2 of the 4 charges queried by the resident (AM/4018304–3 and AM/4031595–1) directly followed on from the initial repair and so should not have been charged to the resident. There is no evidence the other 2 charges were connected and so these were chargeable.
- The landlord charged £257 per property for pest control detailed on the 2019 to 2020 statement of charges, which the resident queried. Under its service charge policy, where a charge for reactive repairs will exceed £250 per property, it will carry out a consultation under section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The amount specified is set out in further Regulations. Under the Act if the landlord fails to consult it cannot charge more than £250 per property for the service. There are similar provisions under section 20 for long term contracts, which limit the charge to £100 without consultation.
- The landlord delayed in replying to the resident’s query for nearly 5 months, which was a failing in communication. It correctly accepted it had overcharged without a consultation and said it would refund the £7 above the £250 threshold, which was the correct action for it to have taken. Within her stage 1 and 2 complaints the resident said she should not have been charged, or the charge should have been capped at £100. In its responses the landlord correctly explained the amount was £250 and apologised that it had not consulted. Its response was correct and reasonable.
- As part of her stage 2 complaint the resident queried a charge from the 2018 to 2019 statement of charges for the first time. In its stage 2 response the landlord relied on section 22 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (although mistyped 1975). It said under this section residents had 6 months to query charges from the date of the statement of charges, which had passed. Under its complaints policy it can also exclude complaints which have not been made within 6 months of the issue. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to investigate the issue was reasonable and in line with its policy.
- Within its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord correctly apologised for its poor communication and not meeting its service standards. It collectively offered £200 compensation for time and trouble. 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.
- Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord’s communication about service charges was poor and it delayed for unreasonably long periods in answering the resident’s queries. Its response to her queries about lighting charges was incorrect and it did not have access to the records and emails it needed. However, its responses to the pest control charge and other charge were reasonable. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £150 additional compensation.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage having been caused to her satellite dish by its contractors
- The resident had permission from the landlord for her satellite dish to be attached to the building. Its contractors completed window replacement works, which required scaffolding. The resident told the landlord, on 18 October 2022, that its contractors had moved her satellite dish. Under its insurance claims policy, the landlord should respond to public liability claims within 24 hours, but it failed to do so.
- After the resident chased the landlord, and it initially incorrectly said it had not carried out any works, it decided to pass the claim to the contractors. While there is no provision within its policy to pass claims on, it was reasonable for it to do so. However, it failed to take responsibility for monitoring the claim which it should have done. It also failed to follow up with the contractors or the resident to check the claim had been resolved.
- When the resident raised the issue as part of her stage 1 complaint in February 2023 the landlord failed to respond to this element within its stage 1 response. Within its stage 2 response in September 2023, the landlord correctly accepted that it had passed the claim to the contractors. However, it said it did not have access to the records due to a member of staff having left. This was a knowledge and information management failing. Positively the landlord agreed to reimburse the cost of realignment, although over a year had passed since the resident reported the issue.
- Overall, there was service failure. The landlord failed to initially reply within its policy timeframe. It then failed to monitor or follow up on the claim it passed to its contractors and failed to keep proper records. The resident had to pursue a complaint to stage 2 of its process to receive reimbursement, which caused her additional time and trouble. To reflect this impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £75 compensation to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s complaint handling
- The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 5 February 2023 and the landlord failed to acknowledge it or respond. This was in breach of its complaints policy and paragraph 5.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. When the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond by a set date the landlord failed to do so. This led the resident to ask to escalate her complaint twice, and the Ombudsman asking it to respond for a second time. The landlord provided its stage 1 response after 127 working days, against a policy and Code timeframe of 10 working days. This was an unacceptable delay. Within its stage 1 response the landlord failed to respond to all elements of the complaint in breach of paragraph 5.6 of the Code.
- In an internal email on 21 June 2023 the landlord said it had not raised a complaint in February 2023, but a service charge query, which it had failed to reply to. The resident’s complaint clearly met the landlord’s policy definition of a complaint, which mirrors the Code’s definition, and so this was a further failing. When the landlord chased its stage 1 response internally, its reply was it was a service charge query and that department did not deal with complaints, so it had not reached a decision for a response. This showed the landlord was not working effectively across its departments to resolve the complaint.
- As the resident had asked to escalate her complaint before she had received a stage 1 response, the landlord correctly asked her to confirm she wanted to and her reasons after it had provided one. It then acknowledged the escalation. It provided its stage 2 response 27 working days after the resident confirmed escalation, and following being asked to by the Ombudsman, which was a failing. Under its policy, and the Code, the landlord had 20 working days to provide a response, or it could have asked for an extension of time, but it fail to. Positively it offered compensation for its failings of £60 for an incomplete stage 1 response, and £40 for a delayed stage 2 response.
- Considering the Dispute Resolution Principles there was maladministration. The landlord failed to adequately put things right and did not demonstrate how it had learned from outcomes. Its compensation offer was too low to reflect the level of inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings. It would have also been helpful if it had said how it would better handle complaints about its handling of service charge queries going forward. To reflect the impact on the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 additional compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
- Handling of service charges relating to repairs to communal lights and pest control.
- Complaint handling.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage having been caused to her satellite dish by its contractors.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
- Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures detailed in this report.
- Pay directly to the resident £425 additional compensation made up of:
- £150 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling her service charges.
- £75 for the time and trouble caused by its service failure.
- £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
- Pay to the resident the amounts she paid towards the costs of repair jobs AM/4018304-3 and AM/4031595-1.
- Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.