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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202303052)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303052

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 February 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 managing agent’s handling of repairs to the electric vehicle (EV) charging point.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat. As part of the lease, the resident receives a designated parking space and a right to park one vehicle in this. The managing agent is a party to the lease as the management company for the building, which is owned by a separate freeholder and head leaseholder. The resident’s representatives acted on her behalf during the complaint and so both she and they are referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report for clarity.
  2. On 19 August 2022, the managing agent recorded that it received a complaint from the resident’s property that the EV charger for the parking space assigned to the property had not been working since 4 August 2022 and they had not had a response or update.
  3. On 10 November 2022, the managing agent issued a stage 1 response to the resident. In this it stated:
    1. the resident had told it that the EV charger had recently been repaired after a 3–month delay but had more recently broken down again.
    2. from its records, a repair order had been raised for the EV charger in August 2022, but this had been cancelled without explanation.
    3. it would raise a new repair order for the EV charger as a 24–hour priority repair.
  4. On 19 December 2022, the resident escalated the complaint. She stated:
    1. there had been a paid visit for an engineer to fix the EV charger but, as no-one from the managing agent attended to permit the work to go ahead, it could not be completed. She stated that she had informed it in advance it would need to be present.
    2. it had been 5 months since the original complaint that the EV charger was not working and the managing agent had delayed addressing this on multiple occasions.
    3. she intended to withhold paying the car parking charges until the managing agent resolved the issue.
  5. The managing agent issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 11 May 2023. In this it:
    1. stated it understood the complaint was from the delay in repairing the EV charger since 19 August 2022 and its communication with the resident about this.
    2. summarised the history of the repairs carried out. It described that:
      1. the EV charging point was first reported as not working on 8 August 2022. It carried out repairs to address this on 30 September 2022.
      2. the resident had reported the EV charger was not working again on 10 November 2022 and a repair took place within 24 hours. The managing agent stated that no faults were found with the EV charger and it was receiving power, so it referred the issues to a specialist contractor.
      3. the resident had told it an engineer attempted to carry out work on 22 November 2022 but this could not go ahead as someone from the managing agent needed to be present.
      4. it raised a new repair order on 28 November 2022 and attended with a contractor on 12 December 2022. The managing agent stated that it diagnosed that there was an issue with the Wi-Fi connection to the EV charger. It stated that it needed to work with the manufacturer of the EV charger and its contractors to address this. The managing agent accepted that its response was poorly coordinated, as its policies and procedures around EV chargers were not developed at the time.
      5. the resident had informed it on 11 March 2023 that the EV charger appeared to be working, but the card used to operate it was not. The managing agent said it attended on 22 March 2023 and considered that this was due to the positioning of the router and resulting poor Wi-Fi signal to the EV charger.
      6. from discussions with the manufacturer of the EV charger it considered the work needed was to reposition the Wi-Fi. However, this was outside of the scope of the work the manufacturer could do. The managing agent stated it was not clear how this work can be completed and it would consider the next steps and whether it could appoint a contractor to carry out this work.
    3. The managing agent acknowledged that it could have managed the enquiries about the EV charger more effectively. It also accepted there were delays in it providing a response to the enquiries and the associated complaint. It offered the resident £450 compensation for this, made up of:
      1. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
      2. £80 for time and effort.
      3. £60 for poor communication.
      4. £110 for its complaint handling and the delay in providing the stage 2 response.
    4. The managing agent said it would not agree to the resident’s request to refund her for the costs of using alternative EV chargers. It explained that this was because the EV charger in the car park would have a similar cost if it was working correctly.
  6. The resident wrote to the managing agent on 25 October 2023 requesting that it agree to a financial settlement of £15,500 for her complaint. As it did not agree to this, she escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made before exhausting a member’s complaints procedure.
  2. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the EV charger is still not working. Following the managing agent’s stage 2 response on 11 May 2023, the Ombudsman has seen that it continued to update her monthly about the actions it was taking to relocate or update the Wi-Fi to improve the connection to the EV charger. It outlined that there were a number of delays with continuing this work, as it was reliant on contractors and the manufacturer to progress this. As of 25 March 2024, the managing agent informed the resident that it was reviewing its overall EV service and infrastructure and would not be progressing repairs or replacement of EV chargers until this review was completed. The managing agent informed the Ombudsman during our investigation that this review is still ongoing and repairs and replacements have remained on hold.
  3. There is no evidence that the resident has complained formally to the managing agent about the events following its stage 2 response specifically or its decision to pause all repairs to EV chargers from March 2024. As the managing agent has not been given an opportunity to respond to these issues through its complaints procedure, the Ombudsman has decided we may not investigate these, in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. If the resident remains unhappy with the managing agent’s actions following its stage 2 response, she can make another complaint to it regarding this. 

Record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman expects members of the Scheme to keep detailed records of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and improve members‘ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
  2. However, the managing agent failed to keep adequate records in the resident’s case, which has affected the Ombudsman‘s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the managing agent and contributed to the other failures identified in this report. This was also contrary to our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Handling of repairs to the EV charger

  1. Clause 6.1 of the resident’s lease says that, subject to the payment of the service charge, the managing agent agrees to provide “Car Parking Essential Services”. This lease defines these as:
    1. “keeping the Car Parking Area in good and substantial repair and condition”.
    2. “keeping the Car Parking Area unobstructed clean and adequately lit”.
    3. “maintaining repairing and renewing all access and entry systems and controls giving access to and from the adoptable highway to the Car Parking Area”.
    4. “repairing maintaining and renewing all fire fighting equipment and complying with the reasonable requirements of the fire officer or insurers”. 
  2. The definition of the “Car Parking Area” within the lease states this is the internal parts of the block used for motor vehicle parking, which includes all “common conduits” (all wires, cables, communication systems etc.) exclusively serving the “Car Parking Area”. The definition does not make specific reference to EV charging stations being included within the “Car Parking Area”.
  3. The managing agent’s repairs policy says that, for leasehold properties, where it is the freeholder or management company, it will generally be responsible for repairing all electrical installations and appliances in communal areas. Its policy states that its service standards for repairs are that:
    1. for routine day-to-day repairs it will aim to complete the repair within an average of 25 calendar days.
    2. for emergency works (where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public) it will attend within 24 hours to make safe the repair issue. It will complete any follow-on repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
  4. From the information provided by the managing agent, although it does not have a specific agreement with the resident about maintaining the EV charger, this was installed in the car park as part of the original development it had a responsibility to maintain. It also acted as if this was part of its responsibility to repair the “Car Parking Area”.
  5. From the available records, the resident’s representative first contacted the managing agent on 28 March 2022 to report that there was an issue with the EV charger. It recorded that it advised them that, as they were not listed on the lease, it could not discuss the issue with them, and the resident would either need to add them to the lease or provide her consent for them to act on her behalf. There is no evidence that the resident or the representative responded to this at the time. As such, the managing agent’s actions were reasonable in not responding to this further without proper authorisation to do so.
  6. On 8 August 2022, the managing agent raised a repair for the electricity supply to the EV charging point not working. However, it cancelled the repair on the same day and recorded it had been “raised in error”. On 19 August 2022, the managing agent recorded a complaint from the property that they had reported the EV charger was not working on 4 August 2022 but this was not fixed and they had heard nothing further. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what repair request was made on 4 August 2022, why the managing agent cancelled this or what information the resident was given. This was a failure by it.
  7. The managing agent attended to repair the EV charger on 30 September 2022, 53 calendar days after its repair request, and it informed the resident the EV charger was fixed. This was inappropriate, as it exceeded its 25-calendar-day service standard for non-emergency repairs and there is no explanation about why this delay happened.
  8. The resident called the managing agent on 10 November 2022 and informed it that the EV charger had stopped working a few days earlier. It raised a repair for its contractor to attend within 24 hours and informed the resident’s representative of this. From the available records, the contractor attended on 15 November 2022. This was unreasonable as it was not consistent with what the managing agent said it would do. That said, we have not seen any indication there was any danger to the resident or the public from the EV charger not working that would have meant that it should have treated it as an emergency repair, so the effect of this delay was limited. This was also attended after 5 calendar days, which was well within the managing agent’s service standard for non-emergency repairs.
  9. The managing agent recorded from the attendance on 15 November 2022 that there was no fault with the supply of electricity to the EV charger. It recommended that a specialist contractor should attend to assess why the resident’s EV charger was not working. The specialist contractor attended on 12 December 2022, when the managing agent recorded there was a problem with the connection between the EV charger and the local router. It stated it would investigate how the EV charger was set up and contact the manufacturer, but it noted that it was unclear which organisation could provide the necessary information.
  10. The resident contacted the managing agent on 19 December 2022 to complain that it had not fixed the EV charger and she had not heard anything further. She also complained that she had paid for an engineer to attend but they could not carry out any work as someone from the managing agent needed to be present. We have not seen any evidence that the resident, or her representative, had informed the managing agent in advance that they had arranged an engineer to attend on 19 December 2022, or that it had agreed to this. This meant there was no failing by it here.
  11. There is no record that the managing agent contacted the resident again until 30 January 2023. At this time, it informed her that the repair request remained open. It outlined that it depended on specialist contractors to progress the repair and accepted that it had poorly coordinated this. It said that it could not provide a timescale for when it would complete the repair but, once it had agreed a date with the contractors to attend, it would inform her of this.
  12. This was unreasonable, as the Ombudsman would have expected the managing agent to have kept the resident, or her representative, updated about what action it would take to respond to the repair request following the attendance on 12 December 2022. Where possible, it also should have updated them about the likely timescales for the repair to be completed.     
  13. From the managing agent’s and the resident’s account, it attended to repair the EV charger at some point following 30 January 2023. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known when exactly this repair occurred, what work was carried out, or what communication it had with the resident or her representative about this. This was a failure by it. At a minimum, the repair took 82 calendar days to be completed following the repair request on 10 November 2022. This was inappropriate, as it greatly exceeded the service standards in the managing agent’s repairs policy. We acknowledge that it required specialist contractors to complete the repair, which would have reasonably delayed resolving this. However, due to a lack of adequate records, we have not seen that the extent of the delay was unavoidable.
  14. The resident contacted the managing agent on 11 March 2023 to raise another repair. She stated that, although the EV charger appeared to be repaired, her card to use this was no longer working and was displaying as invalid. The managing agent acknowledged the resident’s email on 14 March 2023 and told her it would raise this issue with the manufacturer of the EV charger for a response.
  15. From the managing agent’s records, it referred this to the manufacturer on 14 March 2023. It attended the site with the manufacturer of the EV charger on 22 March 2023, 11 calendar days after the further repair request. It identified the root cause of the EV charger not recognising the resident’s card was due to the poor connection between the EV charger and the Wi-Fi. The managing agent’s timely actions to progress the repair to identify the cause of this at this stage were therefore reasonable.
  16. The resident contacted the managing agent on 18 April 2023 to say that she had not heard anything further and asked for an update. It responded on 19 April 2023 and outlined the issue with the connectivity between the EV charger and Wi-Fi. It said that the manufacturer had reformatted her card and asked her to check if it was now working. Due to a lack of adequate records, we have not seen evidence of the managing agent’s correspondence with the manufacturer after 22 March 2023. This was a failure by it. In the absence of records, the delay in progressing the repair between 22 March 2023 and 18 April 2023 was unreasonable because it became aware of the cause of this on the former date and should have dealt with and informed the resident about this from that date instead of after she contacted it again.   
  17. The resident replied that her card was still not working. On 25 April 2023, the managing agent told her it would make further enquiries of the manufacturer. In its stage 2 response on 11 May 2023, it informed her that the manufacturer had said repositioning the Wi-Fi was outside of its scope of work and the managing agent had raised a new work order to address this.
  18. This was inappropriate, as it significantly exceeded the timescales of the managing agent’s repairs policy. It took 61 calendar days to raise this work order following the resident’s March 2023 repair request and 50 calendar days after it first identified an issue with the poor connectivity between the EV charger and Wi-Fi.
  19. In summary, there were failings by the managing agent in each of the 3 repair requests made by the resident on 8 August 2022, 10 November 2022, and 11 March 2023. This is both in relation to the time taken for it to complete the repairs, and the lack of communication with her about how it was responding to the issue.
  20. The managing agent’s stage 2 response accepted that there had been delays in responding to the repair requests and the resident’s queries about this. It offered £450 compensation for this.
  21. The actions the managing agent has taken were appropriate to put right the failings we have seen up to the point of its stage 2 response, in line without our dispute resolution principle for it to do so. The reasons for this decision are that:
    1. An EV charger not working at a property which the resident still had to pay to use would not have a significant effect on her because the cost of using alternative EV chargers would have been similar. Under the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, this is a mitigating factor in the resident’s circumstances when calculating what level of financial redress is fair to put things right.
    2. in her correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has not explained any effect to her directly from the events complained about other than the inconvenience of using alternative EV chargers and complaining, and no other evidence of how this has negatively affected her has been provided. In line with our guidance on remedies, inconvenience alone would not be a significant or “severe-long term” impact. Therefore, the effect of the failings seen on the resident would be consistent with that of a service failure, which the managing agent’s offer of £450 is proportionate to address. This is because our remedies guidance recommends awards of up to £100 compensation to recognise such service failures, while recommending awards in the range of £450 for more serious failures that adversely affected the resident.       
  22. The Ombudsman’s special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord found it responsible for a series of significant systemic failings affecting residents including in record keeping. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including reviewing the recommendations of our spotlight report on knowledge and information management. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of our special investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made for the landlord’s record keeping in addition to those made in the special investigation report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there, was reasonable redress by the managing agent in its handling of repairs to the EV charger.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the managing agent pay the resident the £450 it previously offered if it has not already done so.