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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202304162)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304162

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. A loss of heating and hot water.
    2. Delays completing repairs to a burst pipe affecting the car park.
    3. Delays completing repairs to a communal window.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a two-bedroom second floor flat. The landlord, which is a housing association, is the freeholder of the building.
  2. The resident raised 3 separate complaints to the landlord as follows:
    1. He complained that the landlord had failed to resolve issues with the communal heating system. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer. The date of his complaint is unknown.
    2. On 28 March 2023 he complained that it had failed to fully resolve the flooding of the communal underground car park or offer sufficient compensation.
    3. On 23 July 2023 he complained that it had failed to repair a communal window near his flat since November 2021. He said this resulted in increased energy costs and he requested compensation.
  3. The landlord sent stage 1 complaint responses to the resident on 9 January, 6 April, and 27 July 2023. It said it was investigating the inconsistency with the heating system and would pay £45 compensation for the 1-day heating outage. It apologised that its out of hours service had not raised an order on 18 March 2023 for the car park. It raised the order on 20 March 2023 as an emergency repair and its drainage specialist attended to repair the burst pipe and clear the car park of water. It said it was unable to review his complaint about the window as it was over 1 year old.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his car park complaint on 2 July 2023. He said that while it had fixed the burst pipe on a temporary basis, it needed to fix it properly. Its response included nothing about the removal of the wastewater and the car park smelt of faeces. The dates of his window and heating escalations are not clear from the evidence we have seen.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 July 2023 about the car park. It set out the actions it had taken and said there was no further work needed. It said it would credit the car park charges from March to May 2023 and offered £260 compensation for its service delivery failure from March to June 2023. This comprised £80 for distress, £80 for inconvenience, and £100 for the resident’s time and effort.
  6. The landlord sent stage 2 complaint responses on 20 January, 23 October, and 29 November 2023. It increased its compensation offer for the heating outage to £154.64 and provided its calculation. It increased its compensation offer for the car park to include £50 for its complaint handling, increasing its offer to £310. It also offered to reimburse the resident for any out–of–pocket expenses and said he could make a claim via its public liability insurance for any damaged belongings. It apologised that it had not considered his window complaint and said there had been confusion about which window required repair. In relation to the window repair, it offered £630 compensation comprising £150 for distress and inconvenience, £180 for time and effort, £150 for poor complaint handling and £150 as a gesture of good will.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s responses and compensation offers and brought his complaints to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s complaint about the heating was combined with other residents complaints. The landlord’s responses were sent to all residents of the scheme. We have considered this matter solely for the resident and not the scheme as a whole. The evidence provided to us by the landlord was limited and has affected our ability to conduct a thorough investigation. Our findings are based on the available evidence.

Reports about the loss of heating and hot water

  1. On 9 January 2023 the landlord wrote to all residents explaining that it had merged all heating complaints into a single scheme complaint. It apologised and said it understood the situation had caused frustration and stress. It inspected the network and listed the identified potential issues which needed addressing. It raised an order to investigate further to identify the inconsistencies in the supply and was treating this with high priority. It awarded £45 compensation for the outage between 13 and 14 December 2022. This comprised £30 for the outage and an additional £15 for the increased electricity cost for temporary heaters.
  2. The landlord sent a further response on 20 January 2023 stating that it had “taken stock” of resident feedback. It said that many residents has stated that the drop in temperature had lasted for more than 1 day. This was inconsistent with the data it had from the system but it had listened and recalculated its offer to include 3 extra days. It increased its offer to £152.64 per flat. It explained the actions it was taking to resolve the inconsistencies and said it would continue to monitor the system closely. It would write again to provide an update and arrange a residents meeting to discuss the issues.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 January 2023. He rejected its compensation offer and said that it did not take into account his personal time. He had spent 25 hours chasing its contractor and energy service.
  4. We appreciate that the loss of heating would likely have caused frustration and distress to the resident. However, the landlord appropriately apologised for the situation and demonstrated that it was taking steps to resolve the matter. Its decision to combine resident complaints was reasonable given that all residents were likely affected by the heating issues.
  5. The landlord’s compensation offer was in line with our remedies guidance which says sums of between £100 and £600 are appropriate where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but did not have a permanent impact. Given the high impact/short duration of the outage, we consider the sum offered by the landlord to be proportionate to the impact on the resident’s household. Given that we have not had sight of any further evidence in relation to this matter, we find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in the circumstances.

Reports of delays completing repairs to a burst pipe affecting the car park

  1. In the resident’s complaint he said that the underground car park was flooded with 0.5m of water leaking from a sewer pipe. He said his car was covered in sewage, as were his clothes when he went to move it. He said the landlord “did a really bad job” at cleaning up the area and did not resolve the issue. He added that the car park still smelt and it failed to offer to disinfect his car.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was appropriate in apologising for the 2-day delay in raising the repair. It offered appropriate advice in relation to making a claim for any damages and made a reasonable offer to reimburse any out–of–pocket expenses.
  3. In the resident’s escalation request he said that the landlord had failed to provide alternative parking or means of access to the car park. He said that once all of the issues were resolved he would let it know about a “final sum” as its decision was not satisfactory and offered no compensation. It responded on 13 July 2023 setting out the actions it had taken. It apologised that it had not provided alternative parking but did not believe this was something it could do. It repeated its advice about making a claim for any damages and said it would reimburse the car park charges for March to May 2023 totalling £31.85. It also offered £260 compensation for distress, inconvenience, and time and effort.
  4. The landlord’s apology and acknowledgement of its failings was appropriate. It was reasonable for it to offer compensation and provide advice about claiming for damages.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it repeated the actions it had taken and apologised again for the delay. It increased its compensation offer to £310 which included £50 for its poor complaint handling. It repeated that reimbursement of car washing or other small cleaning items would be considered if the resident provided receipts. It repeated its advice about claiming for damages.
  6. In summary, the landlord’s response was appropriate in apologising for its failings. While there was a delay in replacing the lobby carpet, this would not have caused any significant detriment to the resident. It was appropriate to refund parking charges for the period the car park was affected and to offer to reimburse the resident for any out–of–pocket expenses. There is no evidence to suggest that he pursued this further or submitted a claim via its insurance department. Its compensation offer was reasonable and recognised the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident as well as the time he had spent pursuing matters. We consider that its offer was proportionate to the impact and this was in line with our remedies guidance as referenced above. We find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Reports of repairs to a communal window

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will complete routine day-to-day repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident raised concerns about a communal window in August 2022. He described the location of the window and said the connector was broken rather than the glass. He said he raised the repair in November 2021 and it remained outstanding. He repeated his concerns in October 2022, January, March and April 2023. He said the window provided direct access to his balcony and he feared he may be burgled.
  3. It is not disputed that the landlord failed to acknowledge and repair the communal window. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response regarding the resident’s concern about a broken communal door was appropriate as it completed repairs within its repair policy timescale. However, it did not demonstrate that it completed a full investigation of its repairs records in relation to the window. Had it done so, it would have seen that the resident had been reporting the matter at least since August 2022. It should, therefore, have responded to his complaint at stage 1.
  5. That said, in the landlord’s stage 2 response it apologised that it closed the resident’s complaint without consideration and for its poor complaint handling. It explained that there had been confusion as to which window had been reported. A window in another block had been repaired which resulted in closing the job. It confirmed in October 2022 that it was a damaged automatic opening connector which required a specialist contractor to attend. It acknowledged that from October 2022 to January 2023, he had chased for updates and the repair was completed in May 2023. It apologised for the delays and said it understood the resident’s frustration. It offered compensation of £150 for distress and inconvenience, £180 for time and effort, £150 for poor complaint handling, and a £150 gesture of goodwill, totalling £630.
  6. The landlord also stated that it had emailed the resident on 17 November 2023 to assess compensation for any heat loss. It would need to see copies of his energy bills for the periods he outlined and corresponding bills for the 12 months before this. As it received no response, it had included its gesture of good will as set out in its compensation offer. If he disagreed with its approach, he should provide the requested information.
  7. The landlord’s apology and acknowledgment of its failings was appropriate. It demonstrated some learning from the complaint, in that it should have checked which window required repair and its records at an earlier stage. Its offer to consider additional compensation for energy costs was reasonable. Its compensation offer was also reasonable and considered the resident’s time in pursuing the matter, the distress, inconvenience, and its complaint handling. Its offer was in line with our remedies guidance as referenced above. We have, therefore, made a finding of reasonable redress.

 Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of a loss of heating and hot water.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of delays completing repairs to a burst pipe affecting the car park.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to a communal window.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pay to the resident, if not already paid, the following:
    1. £154.62 offered in its stage 2 response in relation to the heating system.
    2. £310 offered in its stage 2 response relating to the car park.
    3. £630 offered in its stage 2 response relating to the window.
  2. The landlord should also ensure that it has reimbursed car parking charges as stated in its response.