London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202307487)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307487

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

17 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

The complaint is about the condition of the property when let to the resident and the level of compensation the landlord offered for this.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began on 20 February 2023 when she moved by management transfer from another of the landlord’s properties. The property is a 3 bedroom semi detached house. The resident lives there with her 2 children.
The resident phoned the landlord on 14 March 2023. She reported that her bathroom, kitchen and living room windows had gaps which were letting cold air in. She also said the downstairs toilet was not properly attached to the floor and the upstairs toilet was dripping and making a sound. The resident said she was waiting for the landlord to clear items which had been left in the garden when she moved in.
On 28 March 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She complained that:
1. The kitchen and living room windows were unsafe and did not close properly.
2. The hot and cold taps in the kitchen had been plumbed the wrong way round. This had caused issues with her washing machine.
3. The back garden was “a state” and “not left in a safe condition”.
4. The landlord had removed a shed from the garden of the property leaving her with no storage.
5. The bathroom had not been fitted properly, and tiles and sealant were lifting already.
6. The downstairs toilet was not properly attached to the floor.
7. There was a wasps nest in the loft.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2023. It said that it sent a surveyor to inspect the property on 3 April 2023. The surveyor had arranged for a contractor to complete the necessary repairs. The landlord said it would also be carrying out works to the garden on 20 April 2023. It apologised to the resident and offered her a £50 grocery voucher as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 19 April 2023. She said that:
1. She had incurred extra utility bill costs due to the windows letting in air and the taps being the wrong way around. She felt the landlord should reimburse her for these.
2. Her washing machine had overheated due to the taps being plumber incorrectly and she had had to call an engineer out to repair it.
3. She had spent £350 on a new shed as the landlord had removed the existing one.
4. The landlord’s offer of a £50 grocery voucher was not sufficient compensation and was “insulting” as she had never said she was struggling to afford food.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 May 2023. It said that:
1. It had repaired and replaced the windows on 26 April 2023. It apologised that this had not been done prior to the resident moving in and offered her £240 compensation for this.
2. It apologised that her heating had not been working as it should have when she moved it. It offered her £70 compensation for this.
3. It apologised that the kitchen taps had been plumbed incorrectly. However, this would have no bearing on her utility bills. It would also not have damaged her washing machine, which has an internal temperature gauge.
4. It had removed the shed in the garden as it was in poor condition and the roof contained asbestos.
The resident first referred her complaint to us on 31 May 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction with the level of compensation the landlord had offered her. She also said it had failed to fully clear and level the garden, which she had had to do at her own expense.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her original complaint, the resident asked the landlord to remove a chimney breast from one of the bedrooms in the property to increase the available floorspace. In its complaint responses, the landlord declined this request as it was major structural work, rather than a responsive repair, and the resident had accepted the property with the chimney breast in place. On 7 March 2025, the resident told us she no longer wished for us to investigate this element of her complaint. Therefore, it does not feature in this report.
The resident has also reported issues with the carpet in the property, which the landlord had supplied, to us. However, as these did not feature within the landlord’s stage 1 or 2 complaint responses, we are unable to assess it as part of this investigation.

Condition of property and level of compensation

Internal landlord emails show that it failed to identify windows in the property needed renewing until the property was nearly ready to let. It said that the contractor carrying out works in the property was unable to renew these, so it decided to do this after letting the property to the resident. As the resident was moving via management transfer, which the landlord reserves for urgent moves, it was reasonable for it not to delay her moving if it felt the property was habitable.
However, had the landlord identified the need to renew the windows during its initial inspection of the empty property on 4 November 2022, it would have had sufficient time to arrange this prior to it letting the property. This could have avoided the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to the condition of the old windows.
In an internal email, the landlord claimed that it told the resident the windows would be renewed. However, the resident disputes this. The landlord has not provided any evidence to support its claims and the resident’s complaint does not indicate she was aware the windows had previously been agreed for replacement. Therefore, on balance we find that the landlord failed to inform the resident that it would be replacing the windows when letting her the property.
In the same internal email, the landlord also stated that the windows “were secure”. The resident also disputes this. She said in her complaint that they were “unsafe and do not close properly”. We do not have sufficient evidence to prefer one parties version over the other’s on this matter.
The landlord says it raised a works order to a contractor after identifying the windows needed renewing. However, due to a technical issue, the contractor did not receive this order. This delayed the work, and the contractor did not replace the windows until 26 April 2023 – according to the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £240 compensation for its failure to replace the windows prior to her tenancy beginning. It broke this down as £80 per month for distress and inconvenience over 3 months. However, the landlord’s contractor renewed the windows just over 2 months after the resident’s tenancy began.
It is our view that £240 represents reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the increase in heating bills the resident reported over that period. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration which adversely affects a resident with no permanent impact.
The resident also complained that her kitchen taps had been plumbed the wrong way round, with cold water going to the hot tap and vice versa. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for this but said that it would have “no bearing on [the resident’s] utility bills”. We have seen no evidence to the contrary. The issue appears to have been resolved as part of the works completed by the landlord’s contractor on or around 14 April 2024. This was within 20 working days of the resident raising the matter within her complaint, which is the landlord’s repairs policy timescale for routine repairs.
The landlord’s contractor also resolved the snagging issues with the newly installed bathroom and downstairs toilet on this date. However, the resident had originally reported these prior to her complaint – on 14 March 2023. This meant these were completed 31 days after the original report and the landlord failed to meet its policy timescale.
The resident has said that the taps being the wrong way around caused her washing machine to overheat. This led to her having to call out an engineer to repair it. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that washing machines have an “internal temperature gauge” meaning the plumbing error would not have affected it. We do not have sufficient evidence or expertise to determine whether the taps being incorrectly plumbed would have caused such an issue.
Photos on the landlord’s ‘post inspection’ of the property, carried out after works were completed and before it was let, show the garden as being generally clear. But it is unclear whether these pictures show the entirety of the large garden. There is no clearance of waste from the garden listed on the landlord’s schedule of works for the empty property. The resident complained that the garden was left with refuse in it and in an unsafe condition. The landlord arranged a garden clearance, which it completed on 28 March 2023.
The resident has said that the contractor clearing the garden was supposed to return and complete the job the following day but failed to do so. She said this led to her clearing the remainder of the garden at her own expense. However, the resident did not mention this matter when she escalated her complaint on 19 April 2023. As such the landlord did not have the opportunity to investigate this as part of its stage 2 response.
The resident also told us the ground in the garden was left uneven and full of holes. However, the landlord’s ‘void standard’ says that the garden will “not be levelled or prepared for plating etc. this will be the responsibility of the incoming resident”.
She also stated that the garden is full of large trees which she had to arrange to be cut back/removed. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she is responsible for the maintenance of any trees or hedges. However, the landlord’s void standard says that “overgrown hedges and bushes should be cut back/strimmed”. It is reasonable to expect this same principle to extend to trees, to ensure they are in a manageable condition when a new resident moves in.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that it carried out works to the trees whilst the property was empty. However, we note that this did not feature in the resident’s complaint or responses. As such, we make a recommendation for the landlord to reimburse the resident for any costs she can evidence incurring to cut back the trees.
The resident complained that the landlord removed a shed from the property between her viewing it and her tenancy beginning. She said she had to purchase a replacement at a cost of £350. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said, “the shed roof was asbestos and in poor condition”. Due to this it dismantled and removed it. This was appropriate due to the health and safety concerns of asbestos materials in poor condition. There is no obligation within the tenancy agreement for the landlord to provide the resident with a shed. Therefore, it was reasonable for it not to replace this.
The landlord’s void standard says that “the loft space must be inspected. The loft is not designed for storage and any articles placed there should be cleared.” The landlord’s void inspection and post inspection forms do not evidence that it inspected the loft. Due to this it failed to remove the wasps nest which the resident reported in her complaint.
The landlord appropriately raised an order on 3 April 2023 for a pest control contractor to attend. The resident has advised that the contractor removed the wasps nest – which no wasps were currently inhabiting. The date on which this happened is unclear.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised that the resident’s “heating was not working as it should have been when [she] moved in”. The resident has advised us there was no issue with her heating. She believes the landlord may have misunderstood her complaint about increased heating bills due to the issues with the windows.
The landlord offered the resident £70 compensation for this element of the complaint. As there was no heating issue, we will consider this amount in relation to the overall failures identified by this report (excluding the windows, which we have assessed the compensation for separately above).
We will also include the £50 grocery voucher which the landlord offered in its stage 1 complaint response. We note the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the offer of the voucher as she had not indicated she was struggling to afford food and found it “insulting”. Internal landlord emails indicate that this was the only voucher it was able to offer as a goodwill gesture, and there is no evidence this was a judgement of the resident or her circumstances. Nevertheless, we recommend that the landlord make payment of this £50 as compensation, rather than its original offer of a voucher.
It is our view that total compensation of £120 offers reasonable redress for the landlord’s failure to identify the issues described above prior to letting the property, and its failure to complete the bathroom repairs within its policy’s timescale. This, combined with its offer of £240 for its failure to renew the windows prior to the resident’s tenancy beginning means we make a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for the condition of the property when let to the resident.

Recommendations

We recommend that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident £360 compensation composed of:
1. The £50 grocery voucher offered in its stage 1 complaint response – to be paid as monetary compensation instead.
2. The £310 offered in its stage 2 complaint response.

The finding of reasonable redress is contingent on the landlord following this recommendation.

We further recommend that the landlord reimburses the resident for any costs she can evidence incurring related to the clearance of the garden and cutting back of the trees during the first 12 months of her tenancy.