From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202305700)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305700

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

12 May 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal lift.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a seventh floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the block.
  2. On 27 February 2023, the resident complained to the landlord as the lift had not been working for more than 4 weeks.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 9 March 2023. It classed the repairs as major works due to the parts needed to repair the lift. It said it would keep the complaint open until it had completed the repair and then consider compensation.
  4. In April 2023, there was a flood in the building which impacted the intake room which supplied electricity to the lift. For safety reasons, this was isolated until the landlord had removed water from this area. The lift remained off and it put the repairs on hold.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 June 2023, setting out a timeline of events. It confirmed it needed additional parts to complete the repair. Due to importing, delivery and availability, it explained the parts would not be available until the week commencing 10 July 2023.
  6. In August 2023, the landlord paid £200 compensation to the resident as well as each impacted household within the block. The resident was dissatisfied and so the landlord proceeded to consider his complaint at stage 2.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 31 August 2023. It said the £200 compensation offered was in line with its compensation policy and a cheque had been issued to the resident. It stated it would not offer further compensation.
  8. The landlord’s final complaint response dissatisfied the resident, and he referred his complaint to this Service. He felt the landlord acted unfairly by offering the same compensation to each household, without considering the floor they resided on, the size of the household, or the impact on families with children. To resolve the complaint, he wants the landlord to increase its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident described the pain and aches in his knees caused by walking up and down several flights of stairs over a prolonged period of lift outage. The Ombudsman empathises with him. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury. This is largely because parties appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, his concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
  2. In September 2024, the resident informed this Service that the landlord wanted to charge him for the lift repair. Our investigation considers matters up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response, 31 August 2023. The resident can contact the landlord directly if he wants to raise a new complaint about this. Furthermore, complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and not this Service. It is open for the resident to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service for more information.

Lift repairs

  1. Clause 5.3 of the lease sets out the landlord’s duty to maintain, repair, redecorate, renew and, in its reasonable opinion such works are required, improve all structural parts of the building and machinery and plant within, other electrical apparatus and machinery under and upon the building, and common parts.
  2. The lease states the landlord shall not be liable to the leaseholder for any failure or interruption of the services set out in clause 5.3 not attributable to its neglect or fault.
  3. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the lease agreement and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  4. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it is responsible for repairs to common entrance ways, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, and other communal areas. It aims to attend emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public within 24 hours. For routine repairs, it aims to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days. It does not have a timescale for repairs it considers major works.
  5. The landlord provided this Service with a copy of its repair history for the lift. This does not contain the same level of information as referenced within its letter to the resident dated 14 June 2023. We rely on contemporaneous evidence when considering complaints and while we have noted the landlord’s observations and comments, we have not seen evidence to fully support all its statements concerning what happened at each attendance to the lift.
  6. On 19 January 2023, records show an engineer attended the lift following a report of a person stuck in it. The landlord said it ordered a replacement battery, assessed the lift, and left it operational, before it replaced the battery 4 days later. It explained that at this attendance, its engineer observed smoke from the main board connection and switched the lift off. It confirmed a technician attended the following day and identified the repairs and parts required. We recognise the parts were coming from overseas, resulting in a delay. The lift was out of service in the interim. The Ombudsman finds the landlord attended the initial report of a lift fault within the timescale set out in its repair policy.
  7. Within its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had been waiting for approval for the parts needed to repair the lift as it considered this to be major work. It confirmed the approval was granted on 27 February 2023. The landlord has not evidenced why it took almost a month to get these works/parts approved. This is indicative of an avoidable delay and was unreasonable considering it was the only lift in the building.
  8. In April 2023, flooding occurred in the intake room which supplied power to the lift. As such, the landlord could not progress any repairs until the electrical equipment had dried and it was safe to restore power to the lift. The landlord evidenced it updated the resident accordingly. While we appreciate he was frustrated with the further delay, the landlord’s actions to put the repair on hold was appropriate in the circumstances.
  9. The landlord’s records demonstrate it restored the lift to working order in May 2023 but there were instances of further outages during the month. On each occasion it resolved the problem the same day. On 30 May 2023, a technician decided to take the lift out of service as it needed to arrange for the manufacturer to make modifications to the circuit board. Records show the landlord did not make the resident aware of this until 12 June 2023. This was a shortcoming in its communication and caused further frustration and distress to a resident who had already experienced a significant lift outage.
  10. Within the landlord’s notes, the lift also required further parts from abroad. While obtaining the parts was out of the landlord’s hands, it was appropriate for it to follow up with its engineer to establish the updated position and ensure matters were progressing. The Ombudsman recognises it wrote to the resident setting a detailed chronology of events, with an estimated date it hoped to be able to move forward with the repair. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  11. Records indicate engineers repaired the lift in August 2023 and the landlord compensated each household £200. We have not seen copies of the landlord’s communication regarding its offer, so we cannot assess how the landlord explained this to the resident.
  12. The landlord has discretion to decide how much compensation to offer a resident in response to a complaint or service failure. We are only considering the landlord’s response to the resident, not his neighbours within the block. It is not for us to consider whether the offer to his neighbours was appropriate or to compare it with the amount offered him.
  13. While the outage of the lift was prolonged, it is evident that several different issues affected it and some of these, such as the flooding and the lead time for replacement parts, were outside of the landlord’s immediate control. It took steps to try to resolve the issues and while there were shortcomings in its communication, it did provide updates to the resident. Further, we recognise the lease states the landlord is not liable for the failure or disruption of services.
  14. The resident explained to this Service about the difficulties living on the seventh floor with 3 young children without a functioning lift for a significant period. He described how everyday things such as taking the children to school or grocery shopping was more challenging. We appreciate it was a challenging time for him and his family.
  15. The landlord has not demonstrated what it discussed or considered concerning the impact on the resident during its complaint investigation. The stage 2 response makes a general reference to some residents not believing, “the compensation to be a true reflection of the inconvenience caused by the delay returning the lift to service”. We find it was unreasonable for the landlord to make a generic statement here. It would have been more appropriate for it to reference and address the resident’s specific concerns about his own experience and respond accordingly. In this case, the landlord’s stage 2 response was brief and lacked empathy and explanation. It missed an opportunity to properly listen to the resident, establish the impact on him since he initially complained, provide a robust response, and rebuild the landlord/resident relationship.
  16. It was not fair or impartial for the same member of staff to consider the complaint at stage 1 and stage 2, although we accept a different member of staff wrote to the resident on 14 June 2023. Having 2 separate complaint reviews allows for consideration at a more senior level, bringing a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint. Additionally, senior reviews at stage 2 provide an opportunity for a landlord to spot patterns and learn from outcomes. Complaints can provide insights into service provision, function as an early warning system for potential problems and be a catalyst for organisational learning.
  17. Taken together, the landlord acted unfairly in its handling of the issue. The key shortcomings here are with respect to the manner of communication, consideration shown to the resident’s concerns, and the impartiality of its process. In making our order on this finding, we have considered that some of the events were outside the control of the landlord and its decision would not have been different.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal lift.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the shortcomings identified within this report. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order.