Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202302237)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302237

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

6 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about the replacement of the kitchen, bathroom, plumbing and electrics in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 16 February 2017. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint 17 October 2022 about when her property was due for a new kitchen, bathroom, plumbing and electricity upgrade. She also enquired about when the landlord had last replaced the current kitchen and bathroom.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 October 2022.
  4. It responded, not as a formal complaint response, on 7 November 2022. It set out that its kitchens had a 20 year lifespan and bathrooms 30 years. It confirmed it installed the resident’s kitchen in 2009 and bathroom in 2008 meaning it would replace them 2029 and 2038, respectively.
  5. The resident responded asking for paperwork with regards to the decent home’s standard. She also raised that she had 3 different coloured units in the kitchen, the electrics were old fashioned, and the plumbing was old.
  6. The landlord provided a summary of the decent home’s standard on 10 November 2022. It confirmed it was not its policy to repair a kitchen due to different coloured units. It recommended that the resident raise repairs for the broken units she had mentioned but said the other issues were cosmetic which it would not address at that stage.
  7. The resident responded asking the landlord to provide evidence to show when it had completed the property upgrades. On 22 November 2022, the landlord replied and said the best way forward would be to complete a stock condition survey of the property and said it had a 6 month wait list.
  8. The resident contacted this Service in April 2023 following which the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The key points were as follows:
    1. It provided a summary of the relevant sections of the decent home’s standard about kitchen and bathrooms and reiterated its findings made on 7 November 2022.
    2. It confirmed the property had undergone an electrical upgrade in 2008. It confirmed that it undertook an electrical inspection every 5 years and in the event any part of the property failed it would replace the necessary parts.
    3. It confirmed it would also address any electrical or plumbing issues when it replaced a kitchen or bathroom, and it would maintain the systems through its repairs process.
    4. It advised if would be happy to arrange a stock condition survey of the property to confirm the information given in its response.
  9. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 30 May 2023. She said the landlord had just reiterated the points it had previously made. She made the following points:
    1. She suspected work completed in 2008 and 2009 did not constitute a refurbishment and asked the landlord to, again, provide evidence to confirm the scope of works undertaken.
    2. She said she had old gas pipes and electrical sockets in the property which were redundant. She understood that had the landlord renovated the property, it would have removed these at that time.
    3. The resident said she had also previously reported an issue with the plaster in the property, which the landlord had not responded to.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 June 2023. The key points were as follows:
    1. It confirmed it had responded to the resident’s original request on 7 November 2022 and confirmed the findings it had made with regards to the age of the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.
    2. It would only renew a kitchen or bathroom if they were beyond economic repair. The landlord confirmed it was a repairs service and therefore it would undertake a repair in the first instance.
    3. With regards to the resident’s request for paperwork confirming when it had replaced the kitchen and bathroom, it said it was under no obligation to provide them as it pertained to contracts made between the landlord and its contractor. It also highlighted that it could not share details of works agreed with the previous tenant.
    4. With regards to the electrics, it confirmed it completed an inspection in February 2019 and the next one was scheduled for 4 February 2024.
    5. It confirmed it would assess any need for replumbing at the time it completed any major works in the property, but it would deal with repairs when needed.
    6. It confirmed the resident had accepted the property as seen.
    7. With regards to the plaster repairs mentioned, it could not find a report of an issue with the plastering and recommended that the resident contact its repairs team to report the issue.
    8. It confirmed it had arranged a stock condition survey and offered the resident compensation of £300, made up of the following:
      1. £100 for time and effort.
      2. £80 for distress and inconvenience.
      3. £120 for not responding to the complaint for 6 months.
  11. In referring the case to this Service, the resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not provided the paperwork detailing the works carried out to the kitchen and bathroom in 2008 and 2009.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that where age, wear and tear affect key components in a property such as kitchens and bathrooms, it will replace these through a planned programme of work.
  2. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about the replacement of the kitchen, bathroom plumbing and electrics in the property.

  1. Section 4 of the Decent Home Standard says that a property will be classed as a decent home if it has reasonably modern facilities and services. A dwelling would fail to meet this standard if it lacked the following:
    1. A reasonably modern kitchen that is 20 years old or less.
    2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout.
    3. A reasonably modern bathroom that is 30 years old or less.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2022 to ask for information about when her property was due for improvement in relation to the kitchen, bathroom, plumbing and electrics. The landlord appropriately responded on 1 November 2022 to set out this information for the resident. The information provided was helpful and highlighted the landlord’s policy in relation to major works and set out when the resident was due for such works.
  3. The resident, in further correspondence, set out that she was requesting information about the Decent Homes Standard as she had mismatched cupboards, old pipework and plumbing. The landlord helpfully replied to the resident with the relevant section of the decent homes standard and set out that it would not carry out works as it considered the resident’s property to meet the required standard. Given that the resident’s kitchen and bathroom, based on age, met the decent homes standard, the landlord’s position was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. In its response, the landlord also confirmed why it would not consider cosmetic issues as a reason to complete major works in the property. While this would have been disappointing for the resident, the Ombudsman understands that a landlord does not have finite resources, and it was therefore reasonable that it would not consider replacing parts of the property because they seemed old fashioned or mismatched.
  5. The landlord said that its kitchens had a 20 year lifespan and its bathrooms a 30 year lifespan. It, therefore, said that the kitchen and bathroom were not due for a renewal until 2029 and 2038 respectively, as per the decent home’s standard. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request for information and helpfully provided the relevant section of the decent homes standard upon which it had relied.
  6. With regards to the electrics and plumbing, it also confirmed that it inspected the electrics every 5 years, and that it would replace any electrics or plumbing at the time it completed major works. While it may have been useful for the landlord to have provided information with regards to when the next electrical test was due, the information provided covered the request made by the resident.
  7. Furthermore, it confirmed that it would be certain to visit the resident’s home before the planned works were due in any event and reassured her that it would undertake repairs as and when it was necessary.
  8. The landlord also recommended that the resident raise any necessary repairs through its repairs service. While it may have been useful for the landlord to have raised the repairs mentioned for the resident, it did give her further information and directed her to the relevant department.
  9. On 22 November 2022, the landlord recommended conducting a stock condition survey in response to the resident’s concerns about her property’s condition. While this was a reasonable solution that would have allowed the landlord to verify the property’s state and provide reassurances to the resident, there is no evidence that the landlord raised this survey until 7 June 2023. This was 7 months after initially saying that it would complete this. This delay was entirely inappropriate and led the resident to file a complaint with this Service.
  10. Furthermore, in the landlord’s Stage 1 response on 26 May 2023, it reoffered to complete the stock condition survey to ensure the accuracy of the information provided. However, given that it did not raise this until after the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, this was another missed opportunity to raise the survey request. Not doing so caused further delays for the resident.
  11. In both its Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses, the landlord reiterated the information previously given in November 2022. It provided the resident with information about when it last replaced the components in her property and when they were due for replacement. Additionally, the landlord helpfully linked this information to the Decent Homes Standard and its own policies.
  12. With regards to the further evidence requested by the resident showing the scope of works completed on the property in 2008 and 2009, the landlord informed the resident that it could not provide these details due to data protection concerns. However, the landlord did confirm again that it replaced kitchen and bathroom during that period. While it was reasonable for the landlord to withhold the requested information, it might have been helpful to provide any available evidence to satisfy the resident that it did complete the works at that time.
  13. As part of the complaint, the resident also raised concerns about the plumbing and pipework in the property including redundant gas pipes. The landlord set out in its response both in November 2022 and its complaint responses that it would only assess the need for plumbing when it undertook any major works and would not consider any work for aesthetic purposes. While the Ombudsman understands the pipes may have been aesthetically unappealing, the landlord does not have finite resources, and it was therefore reasonable that it did not consider the removal of the pipes at that time.
  14. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord has a responsibility for keeping in repair the installations in the property that supply electricity. The landlord delivers a programme of testing and inspection of all properties on a rolling 5 year cycle. This ensures that its properties have a valid EICR that is no older than 5 years from the date of the earlier EICR. The landlord appropriately provided evidence that it had completed this test in 2019, at which time it found no issues with the wiring in the property. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to reiterate this to the resident and explain that it was satisfied that the property met the required standard with regards to electrics.
  15. Overall, the landlord initially provided the requested information promptly. However, it did not respond to the resident’s further requests for six months. In its complaint responses, the landlord helpfully clarified when it last refurbished the bathroom, kitchen, electrical, and plumbing items and when they were due for replacement. Despite this, the landlord did not raise the stock condition survey and missed several opportunities to do so, leaving the resident unsatisfied with the information provided.
  16. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it accepted that its communication had fallen short of the standard expected and apologised for its delay in responding. In recognising this, it offered the resident £180 compensation for the time and trouble taken and the distress and inconvenience caused.
  17. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord could have improved it handling of the situation, it has recognised the impact on the resident. As such, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in the circumstances. 

Complaints Handling

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 October 2022 which the landlord acknowledged on 25 October 2022. While it provided the resident with a response, the response was unsatisfactory as it did not set it out as a formal complaint response and provided the resident with no information on how to escalate her response.
  2. Furthermore, if the landlord had considered the response a formal stage 1 response, then it would have been reasonable for it escalate the complaint to stage 2 after the resident remained dissatisfied. The landlord’s failure to follow its own complaint policy led to the resident referring her complaint to this Service and caused a 6 month delay in her being able to exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  3. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord accepted that it had not followed the correct process and offered the resident compensation of £20 per month for each month it had not responded to the complaint.
  4. While it should not take intervention from this Service for a landlord to formally respond to a complaint, it is important to note that when the landlord was contacted by this Service to respond to the complaint formally, it provided its stage 1 and stage 2 responses in line with its complaint policy.
  5. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s handling of the complaint could have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, the landlord’s offer of compensation amounts to a finding of reasonable redress in the circumstances. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for information about the replacement of the kitchen, bathroom, plumbing and electrics in the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.  
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. As an offer of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation in this case, the landlord should pay the compensation offered if it has not already done so.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has not yet completed a stock condition survey in this case, therefore, the landlord should consider completing a survey and setting out its findings to the resident and this Service.