London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202307153)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307153

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s service charge queries.
2. The resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of staff.
3. The complaint.

Background

The resident has been the shared ownership leaseholder of the property since 20 May 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat. A separate management company manage the block.
On 16 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord about a letter it had sent to residents of the block regarding an increase in service charges. She said that she and other residents did not agree with the increase and asked it to arrange a meeting urgently. She said that she would like to know:
1. The actual expenditure for service charges in 2022.
2. A full breakdown of charges for 2023 and the reasons for the increase.
The landlord responded on 27 February 2023. It said that there had been a change in staff at the management company. This had led to a loss of communication. However, it had now re-established communication and hoped that issues would be dealt with more quickly.
The resident emailed back the next day asking the landlord to provide answers to her questions. The landlord responded on 1 March 2023. It told her to contact the managing agent for a breakdown of the service charges.
Throughout March and up until 11 April 2023 the resident emailed 2 members of the landlord’s staff and the managing agent 13 times. The managing agent responded 9 times but the landlord did not respond. She complained on 14 April 2023 and said that:
1. Her Neighbourhood Housing Lead (NHL) was not responding to emails, she had requested a meeting over a month before but they had ignored her request.
2. Chasing the NHL and their colleague had no effect and this was not the first time this had happened.
3. She asked for a NHL that responded to queries and communicated with residents.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 14 April 2023. It emailed the resident on 26 April 2023 and said that:
1. It apologised that she had had to complain about her NHL.
2. It had told the NHL to contact her to discuss the issues she had raised about the managing agent.
3. The NHL would send out communication about how service charges were calculated once they had received the information from the managing agent.
The resident contacted this Service for help and we contacted the landlord on 14 July 2023. We asked it to provide a stage 1 complaint response by 21 July 2023.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2023. It said that:
1. It apologised about how it had handled the complaint.
2. It had 6 months after the end of the financial year to provide a final statement of service charges. Therefore, the resident could expect these on or before 30 September each year.
3. It received an estimate each year from the managing agent and then sent reconciled accounts at the end of their financial year, which was 30 September.
4. If the management company did not issue their budget in time for the landlord to provide residents with anticipated costs it used the previous years budget plus an uplift. This was why variances occurred.
5. At the point of reconciliation, she was entitled to request copies of invoices paid on her behalf. She could also request invoices from the managing agents accounts once they became available.
6. It was sorry that she was disappointed with the service provided by the NHL and that responses to her queries were not adequate. The NHL was working closely with the service charge team and managing agents to ensure that it was “providing the service our residents deserve”. The NHL would arrange a meeting with the managing agent once the accounts had been sent out.
7. Had attached a copy of the budget breakdown for October 2022 – September 2023, and a copy of the service charge budget, and estimated service charge letter for the property.
8. Advised her she could contact the leasehold advisory service and that she could make a formal section 22 request to access and inspect the accounts, receipts, and any other documents relevant to the service charge information for the past financial year.
9. Offered £100 compensation comprising £50 for her time and effort and £50 for complaint handling.
On 31 July 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response. She provided copies of emails showing where she had been chasing a response to queries and said that she had been asking for a meeting since February.
The landlord called the resident on 4 August 2023 and escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. It emailed her to confirm the reasons for the escalation request which were:
1. She would like a meeting with the landlord and managing agents as she was unhappy with the service charge increases and wanted these removed.
2. She was dissatisfied with the lack of action of the NHL.
3. The landlord confirmed that its action plan regarding the stage 2 escalation was to:
  1. Contact the managing agent to arrange a joint meeting with residents.
  2. Contact all residents to inform them of the time and date of the meeting.
  3. Invite residents to the NHL’s monthly inspection, giving residents an opportunity to raise any issues.

The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 22 August 2023. It said:
1. That the stage 1 response had provided information on how the service charges had been calculated. It had addressed the concerns regarding service charge increases and provided documentation to give answers about the increase in service charges.
2. That it had already provided a response about the allegations made about the lack of communication in the stage 1 complaint response.
3. It would arrange a joint meeting between the resident, managing agent and itself once the managing agent provided some dates.
4. As the stage 1 response had provided the information required it did not uphold the complaint. However, it raised the compensation offer to £150.
5. She could contact the leasehold advisory service for impartial advice about her lease and service charges.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Part of the complaint related to the level of service charge. While we can consider how a landlord responds to service charge queries or provides service charge information, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is a more appropriate body to consider disputes about the level of service charges. The Tribunal has the function of judging disputes over leasehold issues like service charges and can investigate and make orders further than we can. Because of that, in line with the Scheme, this investigation will consider the landlord’s responses to the resident’s queries but will not seek to determine the reasonableness of the service charge cost amounts.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the landlord’s staff conduct. This service will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available.

Service charge queries

The resident first raised the service charge query on 16 February 2023. She asked specific questions. The landlord responded 8 working days later but it did not answer the questions she had asked. This caused the resident frustration and cost her time and trouble because she had to email it again. After a further 3 working days the landlord then told her that she should contact the managing agent for the answers. If this was the case the landlord should have told the resident this straight away. This delay cost her further time and trouble because she emailed the landlord to chase a response numerous times during this period.
The landlord then said that it would get a breakdown of the service charge statement. This contradiction was confusing for the resident and we have seen no evidence that the landlord provided this until the resident complained. The resident then started to email the landlord and the managing agent simultaneously and the managing agent told the resident that any service charge queries should be raised with the landlord. This clearly caused the resident distress because she told the landlord that she was stuck in the middle between both organisations.
When the resident queried who she should be contacting again the managing agent said that she should contact the landlord but the landlord did not respond at all. The resident sent a further 11 emails to the landlord and managing agent and the landlord did not respond to any of them. This communication failure caused the resident further distress and cost her further time and trouble.
When the resident complained the landlord responded to say that the NHL would work with her to answer her questions but we have seen no evidence that it kept this promise. The resident then emailed it to chase this up 2 more times before contacting this Service for assistance. This cost her further time and trouble.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord did not clearly explain why it could not provide the specific information the resident had asked for. The response was long and contained general advice but the landlord did not link this to the resident’s queries to explain why the advice was relevant. The resident therefore still had unanswered questions and escalated the complaint, costing her further time and trouble.
The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the process was poor. It is understandable that it may not have been able to answer the resident’s queries when she raised them, but it should have communicated this to her effectively from the outset. It did not respond to numerous emails and when it did respond it did not answer the questions raised or give any reasons why it could not give answers at that time. It promised to arrange a meeting on more than 1 occasion but did not do so until long after the stage 2 complaint response. It also gave conflicting advice regarding who she should contact for answers. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
At stage 2 of the complaints process the landlord offered £150 compensation. However, it is unclear what this for. We do not feel that this was proportionate to the distress, time, and trouble caused by its failings. We have therefore ordered it to pay £500 compensation to reflect this. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We have also ordered it to contact the resident to ensure that it has now answered all her queries.

Staff conduct

When a resident complains about the conduct of a member of staff the landlord is expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings. It should conduct an independent investigation so that it can reach an informed and reasonable decision on the complaint raised.
We have seen no evidence in this case that the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint about the NHL’s lack of action and non-response to emails. We have seen no internal notes about any discussions that the landlord had with the staff member, or that it checked any evidence to make an informed decision.
In the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses the landlord mentioned the resident’s concerns and apologised that she was disappointed with the service provided by the NHL. However, it gave no indication that it had investigated the matter at all. This meant that the resident did not feel reassured that the landlord had investigated and acted accordingly. This caused her distress because she felt the landlord was not listening to her concerns and it also cost her time and trouble escalating the complaint.
As we have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and it did not provide an adequate response there was maladministration in its handling of her reports about staff conduct. It failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress, time, and trouble this caused. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code in place at the time of the complaint (the Code) said that landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It said that if the landlord needed an extension of over 20 working days, this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord took 72 working days to provide an adequate response to the stage 1 complaint response. There is evidence that it emailed the resident regarding the complaint prior to this but this communication did not meet the criteria within the Code for a complaint response. This lengthy delay and failure to follow the Code meant that she was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her distress and inconvenience. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
The Code also said that “a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made”.
The staff member that completed the stage 1 complaint investigation had been copied into all the email queries that the resident had complained remained unanswered. Therefore, the staff member may not have been impartial and independent. The resident raised this concern when she received the response. However, the landlord did not address it in the stage 2 response and merely reiterated what the stage 1 complaint response had said. This failure to use the complaints process to put things right further undermined the relationship between the resident and landlord and caused her further distress.
The landlord called the resident to discuss the stage 2 escalation request which was an appropriate action to take. It then sent her an action plan telling her what it would do following the conversation. However, despite over 2 weeks having passed, it had still not arranged the promised meeting by the time of the stage 2 complaint response and did not give an adequate explanation for the delay. It also did not mention the proposed invitation to attend the NHL’s monthly inspection. This failure caused the resident further frustration and distress because her expectations had been raised. Therefore, she took time and trouble contacting the landlord again and escalating the complaint to this Service.
Due to the long delay and failure to use the complaints process to put things right there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have therefore ordered it to pay £150 compensation to the resident to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience this caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of staff.
3. Complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident directly £850 compensation comprising:
1. £500 for distress, time, and trouble caused by its handling of her service charge queries.
2. £200 for the distress, time, and trouble caused by its handling of her report about the conduct of a staff member.
3. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
4. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £150 which should be deducted from the total if already paid.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior manager must contact the resident by telephone to find out if she has any outstanding service charge queries and support her to complete a formal section 22 request if required. They must then answer these queries directly, explaining why they cannot supply the information, if applicable, within a further 2 weeks.
The landlord must review the case within 10 weeks of the date of this report. It must provide a report to identify how its failings in this case will inform and implement changes to avoid the following errors re-occurring in the future:
1. Communications failures, including no response to multiple resident queries.
2. Ensuring that complaints are answered by impartial and independent complaint handlers.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.