London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202231157)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231157

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 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 response to the resident’s reports of issues with her windows.
This investigation also considers the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She lives in the property, a 2-bed house, with her children. The property was built between 1991 and 1995.
The resident first reported issues with her windows to the landlord in November 2020. She said the wooden frames were “falling down”, that she had children, and this was a health and safety issue.
On 2 February 2021 the resident made a stage 1 complaint (Complaint 1). She said her kitchen window and 2 bedroom windows would not close and were “stuck open halfway”.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 1 on 3 February 2021. It said its contractor was trying to find replacement hinges for the windows. It said it had offered to screw the kitchen window shut for security but the resident had refused this. The landlord said its contractor would attend on 22 March 2021 to replace the hinges.
On 3 March 2022 the resident made another stage 1 complaint (Complaint 2). She said the contractor had failed to attend an appointment. She said it told her it attended and had photographed her door as proof but she was “adamant” no one had knocked on her door.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to Complaint 2 on 14 March 2022. It said it did not uphold the complaint as its contractor had provided a photograph of her front door taken on the date of the missed appointment.
On 3 March 2023 the resident made another complaint (Complaint 3). She said the landlord had not carried out the window repairs and that they were still stuck open. She stated the contractor had attended “over 20 times”, often with the wrong parts. The resident said the property was cold due to the windows being open and this was increasing the cost of heating her home.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 3 on 6 March 2023. It said:
1. In line with its complaints policy it could only consider events in the last 12 months.
2. Its contractor attended on 30 May 2022 but the resident had “denied access”.
3. The contractor attended again on 24 June 2022 and stated the windows needed new hinges.
4. The contractor booked repair appointments in December 2022 and January 2023. It had not attended these due to staff absence. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience this caused.
5. The contractor said it replaced the hinges on the bedroom windows in February 2023 but that the hinges for the kitchen window were “obsolete”.
6. There were no alternative hinges and no further repairs could be done. It had screwed the kitchen window shut.
7. It was waiting for advice from its surveyor about whether it could replace the kitchen window. It would consider compensation when it had completed any work.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord provided an update on its stage 1 response to Complaint 3. It said its surveyor had agreed that it would replace the kitchen window. Its contractor would measure the window and then provide a quote. Windows took 6 to 8 weeks to manufacture and it would contact her with a fitting date. It recognised the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and offered her £250 as a “goodwill gesture”.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 3 to stage 2 of its process. She said she did not feel it was listening to her. She said that the issue had been going on for a long time and had caused stress, inconvenience and financial impacts. She said she did not feel the compensation offered was enough. The landlord confirmed it would escalate her complaint but said due to a “backlog” it could not provide a timeframe for its response.
On 2 August 2023 the resident made a further stage 1 complaint (Complaint 4). She said the contractor had missed several appointments and that the repairs were still outstanding. She said she wanted a different contractor to handle the repairs.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 4 on 9 August 2023. It upheld the complaint and said it apologised for the delay in completing the repairs. It said its contractor would attend on 17 August 2023 to repair the windows. It offered the resident £60 compensation for 3 missed appointments.
On 22 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 3. It upheld its stage 1 complaint response and said she had refused an appointment for the kitchen window repair as she wanted a different contractor. It offered her the £250 offered at stage 1 plus £100 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
The resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the complaint as the landlord had not completed the repairs. She also felt the landlord had not addressed all her concerns. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman and it became one we could consider in April 2024.
The landlord has stated it carried out repairs to the windows in November 2024. It has also advised the windows are on its planned replacement programme for the 2026 financial year.

Legal and policy framework

The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain the structure of the property. This includes the windows. It also obliges the resident to provide the landlord and its contractor with access to the property to complete repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 25 days. It states that where age and wear and tear affect components like windows, it will replace them through a planned programme of work.
The landlord’s major works policy covers replacement of components including windows which are “no longer economic to repair and not already scheduled for planned replacement”. The policy does not provide timeframes for such work.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy states it will not consider complaints over 12 months old unless there are “exceptional circumstances”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has been reporting issues with her windows to the landlord since November 2020. She has made several formal complaints to the landlord about the issue between February 2021 and August 2023.
We must consider what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. The events surrounding the resident’s complaints in 2021 and 2022 are so closely related to the complaint that completed the landlord’s complaint process that the landlord should reasonably have widened the scope of its investigation.
We also consider that had the landlord should reasonably have treated Complaint 2 as an escalation request to Complaint 1, and Complaint 3 as an escalation request to Complaint 2. This is because the complaints were all about the same issue and the situation had not been progressed. This would have enabled the resident to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman sooner. That it did not do so delayed the process and should not therefore limit the scope of our investigation.
Therefore, it is fair to the resident to include events from 2020 onwards to decide what is fair given all the circumstances of the case. Assessment of historical events will be proportionate.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with her windows.

The resident first reported issues with the windows in November 2020. The records show the landlord carried out an inspection within that month. This was a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord has not provided a report of the findings of this inspection. This – or the findings – should reasonably have been contained within the landlord’s repairs logs. Repairs raised the following month however show that it found that the hinges needed to be replaced on 2-bedroom windows and the kitchen window.
In December 2020 the contractor inspected the windows and advised the landlord that the hinges required were “no longer available”. It said that in its opinion the windows were “past their serviceable life and…in need of replacement”. It said the joints of the window frames were “coming apart” and there was a risk the glass would fall out.
This indicates that there was a health and safety risk. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord considered this further, assessed the risk, or took preventative action. This was inappropriate.
The evidence shows that the landlord continued with its plan to repair the hinges rather than replace the windows. In January 2021, the contractor advised that there were no compatible hinges available and stated again that the windows had reached the end of their serviceable life and should be replaced as “repairs [were] not possible”.
In February 2021, the records show the landlord told its contractor to source and fit replacement hinges as the windows were “not due for renewal”. The contractor had already told the landlord that it could not find any compatible hinges. It is therefore unclear why the landlord continued to pursue this action.
The windows have wooden frames and have been in place since the property was built around 30 to 35 years ago. The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) estimates that landlords will need to replace windows every 40 years.
The Regulator of Social Housing’s (RSH) safety and quality standard states landlords must ensure that homes meet the DHS. It also states they must have good stock condition data and use this to inform compliance with the DHS. In practice this means using their stock condition data to ensure they have a programme outlining when it will replace components such as windows. It is best practice for landlords to publish their capital programme so residents’ expectations of when their windows etc will be replaced are managed effectively.
We accept that at the time of the contractor’s advice, the resident’s windows may not have been on the planned works programme. However, the landlord’s major works programme was in place for circumstances like this case where the windows could not be repaired and were not already scheduled for planned replacement.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have regard for the advice of professionals unless it can demonstrate reasonable justification for not doing so. We do not consider that it did so in this case and this was a failing.
The records show that in February 2021 the landlord offered to secure the kitchen window until it could complete the repair. The resident said she did not want it to do so as she needed to be able to open the window when she cooked. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns and accept that screwing the window shut would have caused her inconvenience. However, that the landlord offered to do so shows it had regard for the security issues posed by a ground floor window being stuck open. This was appropriate.
The contractor attended the property in March and September 2021 to carry out repairs but the records state the resident was not home. It is not clear from the records whether the landlord made her aware of any appointments. We would expect to see a record that appointments had been confirmed with the resident by telephone or in writing.
In March 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that its contractor had failed to attend an appointment on 18 February 2022. She said the contractor said it had attended and had a photograph of her door as proof. The resident said she had taken a day off work for the appointment and no one had attended.
We acknowledge the resident’s comments that a photograph does not evidence that the operative knocked on her door. We also note that we have not seen the photograph taken by the contractor. However, we do not consider that it was unreasonable that the landlord accepted the contractor’s photograph as evidence that it had attended.
The landlord advised the resident that the contractor would attend again on 18 March 2022. The repair log does not show whether this appointment went ahead. This indicates gaps in the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident reported a further missed appointment in May 2022. The repair log states the contractor attended but the resident “denied access”. It is not clear from the records whether the contractor provided evidence such as a date stamped photograph of the door. We note that the resident refuted this account and stated she stayed in all day and that the contractor told her on the day that the operative would not be attending as they were ill. As we do not have evidence to corroborate either account, we cannot determine which was accurate. We do however consider that the landlord should have investigated this further. That it did not was a missed opportunity.
Communications from the landlord to the resident show that its contractor inspected the windows in late June 2022. While the records show that the landlord amended the priority of the repair from ‘category 3’ to ‘category 4’, there is no record of the inspection or its findings. This indicates further record keeping issues. As we do not know the outcome of the inspection, we cannot determine that the landlord’s later actions were reasonable.
The evidence shows that the contractor failed to attend 2 appointments in December 2022 and January 2023 due to staff sickness. We accept that such occurrences are beyond the landlord’s control. However, there is no record in its repair logs of these failed appointments. This is further evidence of record keeping issues.
The resident told the landlord that its contractor had attended “over 20 times, on many occasions with the wrong parts”. She also stated that she was struggling to heat the property as she could not close the windows.
At the start of March 2023 the landlord asked its contractor to quote for replacing the kitchen window. It told the resident that it had done so.
Within its complaint response, the landlord said its contractor had replaced the bedroom window hinges in February 2023. This is contradicted by the evidence which shows that no repairs were completed as the contractor did not have the correct parts. We would expect the landlord to be able to establish from its own records what work had been completed. That it did not, demonstrated poor record keeping and poor contractor management.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the cost of heating the property. The DHS states that properties should provide reasonable thermal comfort. We would therefore have expected the landlord to investigate her concerns. That it did not was inappropriate.
The resident called the landlord in May 2023 for an update on the repairs. The records show the contractor had sent a quote to the landlord but as it did not respond the repair was closed. This further delayed the resolution of the repair issues.
Later that month the landlord decided that it did not need to replace the windows and that it would only complete repairs. The basis for this decision is not clear from the evidence provided to us. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate that it acted fairly and appropriately when reaching this decision. We also note that we have not seen evidence that the landlord communicated its change in plan to the resident. It therefore failed to effectively manage her expectations and caused her avoidable distress.
In June 2023, the resident again asked the landlord for an update. The records show it contacted the contractor who advised that the landlord had rejected its quote for replacing the kitchen window and instead wanted the windows to be repaired. It is not clear whether it passed this information to the resident. It is also unclear why the landlord needed to chase the contractor for this information which it should have been able to obtain from its own records. This indicates further information management issues.
The landlord told the resident in its final complaint response letter that it needed to “finalise” her kitchen window repair. It said that the resident had however advised she wanted a different contractor to carry out the repair. It advised her that in line with her tenancy agreement she was obliged to provide access for the work to be completed.
The records show that in September 2023 the resident’s kitchen window “fell out” and a new window frame and casement was required. The evidence suggests that this meant the glass had fallen out of the frame, though this is not explicitly stated. It is clear from photographs provided that at some point the landlord boarded up the window though it is not clear when it did so. This demonstrates further poor record keeping.
In November 2023 the resident stated again that she no longer wished for the landlord’s contractor to carry out the repair. The landlord reiterated its position as set out in its stage 2 response.
While we acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the contractor, the landlord was correct in pointing out the obligations of her tenancy. However, considering the avoidable delays in the case it should have shown more empathy to her situation. It should also have addressed the resident’s request and explained why it was not considering allocating a new contractor. That it did not was unreasonable.
The records show that in November 2023 the landlord told its contractor that it would be allocating the window repairs to another contractor and that it could therefore close the repair. We have seen no evidence that the landlord passed the work to another contractor. As such, the landlord’s communication with the contractor was confusing and it is evident that this further delayed resolution of the issues.
In February 2024, the resident asked for an update on the repair. The landlord said the contractor had the required parts available to repair the bedroom windows and therefore she needed to provide it with access. It also advised that it had obtained a quote for the replacement of the kitchen window but that this had been “declined by panel”. It would therefore need to be completed by the contractor.
It is not clear to what panel the landlord is referring to as we have found no mention of one in the policies it has provided to this Service. Nor is it clear what the panel considered or how it came to its decision. We would expect it to have recorded such information and provided it for the purposes of our investigation.
The landlord carried out repairs to the bedroom and kitchen windows in November 2024. The records do not state what work was carried out but photographs show the windows closed and the glass in the kitchen window had been replaced.
The landlord has stated, in response to an information request from this Service, that the windows are on the planned programme for replacement in the 2026 financial year. It is positive that the replacement has been scheduled and this will no doubt be welcomed by the resident.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Delayed for 4 years to carry out repairs to the windows.
2. Did not show that it had regard for professional advice to replace the windows.
3. Failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations by saying it would replace the kitchen window then that it would not.
4. Did not address the resident’s concerns about thermal comfort and the cost of heating the home.
5. Failed to keep thorough and accurate records.
6. Failed to manage the contractor effectively.
Therefore, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the windows.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The primary aim of a complaint process is to resolve the substantive issue of complaint. That the resident felt compelled to make 4 separate complaints about the same issue demonstrates that the landlord failed on several occasions to engage with the complaint in a meaningful manner.
In its stage 1 response to Complaint 3 the landlord said that it would only consider events within the previous 12 months.
The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time said it would not consider complaints over 12 months old unless there were exceptional circumstances. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that when a complaint is about a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this will help to resolve the issue for the resident. We consider that in this case the landlord should have exercised its discretion and considered the full timeframe of the repair issue. That it limited its own investigation to the previous 12 months was unreasonable. As a result of doing so, the landlord missed an opportunity to consider the situation as a whole and to understand the resident’s experience.
Within its stage 1 response to Complaint 3 the landlord said its contractor had repaired the bedroom windows. This was not the case. That it included inaccurate information in its response indicated that it had not thoroughly investigated the issue. This caused the resident avoidable frustration.
The landlord told the resident in its follow-up stage 1 response that it would replace her kitchen window. It then decided 2 months later that it would not do so. This mismanaged the resident’s expectations and caused her unnecessary distress.
The resident escalated Complaint 3 to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 28 March 2023. The landlord advised that it had a “backlog” and could not tell her when she would receive a response. It took it 101 working days to provide its stage 2 response. This was an inappropriate delay which caused the resident time and trouble and delayed her access to this Service.
The Code states that the landlord must consider all issues raised by the resident in their complaint. The resident clearly stated in Complaint 3 that she was concerned that the repair issue was causing her property to be cold and increasing her heating costs. The landlord failed to acknowledge or address these concerns in its stage 1 or stage 2 responses. This was inappropriate.
The Code states that the person considering the complaint at stage 2, must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. The landlord’s stage 2 response to Complaint 3 was signed by the ‘customer relations team’ rather than an individual. We cannot therefore confirm whether the complaint was dealt with by a different individual. This was unreasonable.
The stage 2 response to Complaint 3 also advised the resident that if she remained unhappy and wanted to escalate her complaint us, she would need to wait 8 weeks and then contact a designated person. This requirement was removed from the Scheme in October 2022, 10 months before the landlord sent its response. We provided guidance to member landlords in 2022, in advance of the change. Therefore the landlord should have taken steps to ensure staff were aware of the change and that it updated template letters. The error in this case suggests that it did not take such actions. The incorrect advice may have resulted in a delay to the resident accessing this Service and was therefore inappropriate.
The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation and a further £100 for its delayed response. We do not consider that this was proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident for such a prolonged period. We have therefore ordered the landlord to replace its offer with:
1. £500 for distress and inconvenience for its handling of the window repairs.
2. £300 for time and trouble for its handling of the window repairs.
3. £100 for distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling.
4. £100 for time and trouble for its complaint handling.
We note that the landlord referred to its offer as a ‘goodwill gesture’. We do not consider this appropriate. This term is generally used when no responsibility is admitted. In this case the landlord was responsible for the delay in completing the repairs and the resulting distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was ineffective. The resident had to complain about the same issue 4 times and the landlord still failed to resolve the issue until 3 months after its final complaint response. The landlord did not address all issues of complaint, failing to address the resident’s concerns about her increased heating costs. It delayed unreasonably in providing its final response and this delayed the resident’s access to this Service. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with her windows.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,000 which comprises:
  1. £500 for distress and inconvenience for its handling of the window repairs.
  2. £300 for time and trouble for its handling of the window repairs.
  3. £100 for distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling.
  4. £100 for time and trouble for its complaint handling.
  5. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of compensation. If it has already paid this, this should be deducted from the amount ordered.
3. On production of suitable evidence from the resident (eg energy bills showing increased costs) the landlord to consider reimbursing her for the increased cost of heating the property due to delays in completing window repairs. It should demonstrate it has sought suitable evidence from the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report. If the resident is unhappy with its decision she can make a new complaint.
Unless it has done so within 6 months of the date of this report the landlord must provide complaint handling training to all relevant staff to ensure that they:
1. Understand the requirements within the Code.
2. Are aware that they should apply discretion when considering the timeframe of its investigation.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider publishing its planned works programme so residents’ expectations can be managed effectively.