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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202308087)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308087

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began in May 2019. She lives in a 3-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a mid-rise block.
  2. The resident called the landlord on 14 November 2022 to express her dissatisfaction regarding the amount of time taken to get issues with her kitchen resolved. She said she had made the landlord aware shortly after moving in about the state of the kitchen. She followed up her call with an email and photos showing the damage to the kitchen units. The landlord has not been able to confirm to this Service when it received the email.
  3. The resident’s email set out that:
    1. When she moved into the property the kitchen cupboards were already damaged, and it was clear they were “wonky” from the number of times that they had previously been repaired. The worktop was chipped and peeling off and some of the drawers were on the verge of breaking. She had reported this to the landlord at the time, but as it was during the COVID-19 pandemic no one could attend to inspect, so she carried on as best as she could.
    2. When the landlord’s contractor eventually attended, it attempted to fix the worktop with gaffer tape. She remained dissatisfied with this even as a temporary repair.
    3. The landlord had sent a contractor who informed her that “the kitchen had clearly been repaired so many times before that the holes would no longer align for the doors” and that she “simply need[ed] a new kitchen” as “it was not worth repairing”. Measurements were taken of the cupboards and doors, and she was asked about her preference of colours and styles on which a quote would be based.
    4. She had received a call from the landlord’s contractor on 27 October 2022 to arrange an appointment. This was scheduled for the following morning. She had made arrangements prior to the appointment and emptied all the cupboards. She had missed the contractor’s call just before 8.30am on 28 October 2022, and although she called them back several minutes later, the contractor explained it had now gone to another job and they would come back to the property on 31 October 2022.
    5. Although the contractor had returned on 31 October 2022, it was for a repair and not for replacement of the kitchen. When the resident informed the contractor of what she expected, the contractor left without doing any work. Since that time the resident had been contacting the landlord to understand what was happening. She was informed by the landlord that the contractor had sent back an amended work order which needed to be approved by the landlord.
    6. She had been informed on 11 November 2022 that the amended quote was declined by the landlord. It said as the kitchen was less than 10 years old, it needed to be repaired and not replaced. The resident said the age of the kitchen was not the issue, but rather the state of it and the fact that it was clear it could not be repaired. This caused embarrassment when she had friends and family visit her. She wanted the landlord to look into the matter and to replace the kitchen as soon as possible.
  4. The landlord treated the resident’s email as a complaint and issued its stage 1 response on 6 December 2022. It said:
    1. It could only go back 1 year when considering complaints. Given this timeframe, it noted the resident’s kitchen was inspected by it on 12 January 2022. Following this inspection, the repair was passed to its major works team.
    2. A work order was raised on 15 June 2022 with its contactor. Following the contractor attending, it submitted a quote to the landlord on 2 November 2022. The landlord’s surveyor would review the quote and update the resident as soon as possible.
  5. The resident emailed this Service on 22 May 2023. She said she had raised her complaint with the landlord in November 2022 and asked it to treat the matter as urgent. However, 6 months later “no action has been taken, neither in terms of a new kitchen nor repairs”. She noted that in March 2023 an appointment was scheduled with a different contractor. It attended the property on 3 April 2023 to assess the kitchen and concluded “no viable repairs could be made to ensure its durability”. Although a quote for a new kitchen was submitted by this contractor, this was declined by the landlord. She said the landlord was prepared to change the sink but not the rest of the kitchen.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 1 June 2023. It said that an appointment was arranged for 3 July 2023 with the second contractor. It also said it would “begin to finalise” her complaint case. It offered £420 compensation as a gesture of goodwill for its delay in resolving the issue.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 June 2023 asking it to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said that multiple parties had informed the landlord the kitchen was beyond repair, but it chose to ignore this. She felt the compensation was insufficient for the “amount of distress this situation has given me and my family since 2020”.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 August 2023. It offered the resident £500 compensation (although it incorrectly referred to the total as £600 in one place in its letter). This was made up of £75 for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response, £250 for the delay to repair, and £175 for distress. The landlord confirmed that an appointment was scheduled for 30 August 2023 to carry out works required to the kitchen.
  9. The resident subsequently referred the matter to the Ombudsman. In her email of 17 October 2023, the resident said the landlord’s contractor did not attend on 30 August 2023 despite her taking the day off and moving everything for the work to be carried out. She added the matter remained unresolved as the landlord failed to understand or to listen to those who attended the property. She said no repairs had been carried out and the landlord’s contractor had failed to keep to appointments. As a resolution, she wanted a fully functional kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident mentioned when referring the matter to this Service that the issues with the kitchen were ongoing since shortly after she moved into the property in 2019. She acknowledged that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the landlord was unable to attend for a considerable period of time. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments, we are unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time (normally 12 months). From the information provided to this Service, the resident did not make a complaint to the landlord until November 2022. For this reason, our investigation has considered events from November 2021 onwards.

The Ombudsman’s role

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with these principles.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
  2. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
  3. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It confirms that the landlord will carry out repairs for which it is responsible.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy says that “in line with our customer promise we aim to complete everyday repairs to a good standard and within a reasonable timeframe”. It adds “where age, and wear and tear affect key components such as kitchens, bathrooms, doors and windows, these will be replaced through a planned programme of work”. No information is provided in the policy regarding how old a kitchen would need to be before it would be replaced through the planned programme of works.
  5. The landlord’s website and tenancy agreement set out its responsibilities for repairs. The repairs policy confirms that the timeframe for a routine repair is on average 25 working days.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will consider an offer of compensation in the event of a service loss or if its failure has impacted a resident. It says it will “award discretionary compensation when our mistake or failure causes a customer distress and inconvenience and/or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting us to put things right”. The level of compensation is based on several factors including duration, seriousness, actions by the landlord, and how it communicated with the resident. The policy does not provide any details in relation to the amount of compensation the landlord may offer in different circumstances.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that the landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure:
    1. It will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and aim to respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. If it needs further time, it will explain this to the resident and respond within a further 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances it may need longer, but it will agree this with the resident. After issuing the decision, the landlord will “monitor progress until all outstanding actions are complete”.
    2. If the resident remains dissatisfied and sets out the reasons why, including what they require to resolve the complaint, it will be escalated to stage 2. The landlord will respond within 20 working days of escalation. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will send an explanation to the resident and respond within a further 10 working days. Again, in exceptional circumstances it may need more than 10 days, in which case it will agree this with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen

  1. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether or not the resident’s existing kitchen required replacement. Instead, the role of this Service is to consider whether the landlord has taken appropriate steps, in line with relevant policies and procedures, to address the resident’s reports of problems with the kitchen.
  2. The resident has informed this Service that she raised concerns about the kitchen shortly after moving into the property in 2019, and that the landlord attempted repairs which did not resolve the matter. This investigation has considered the events from November 2021, and it is noted that the landlord has not provided its repairs records from prior to October 2021. This means we cannot say how many times the landlord previously attempted repairs to the kitchen units. The earliest repair record provided notes issues relating to the sealant having come away from the kitchen sink, leading to water ingress into the cupboards. This repair was completed by the landlord’s contractor on 3 December 2021. As the issue was noted to have been raised by the resident in October 2021, the repair was outside of the timescales noted for a routine repair. The contemporaneous notes from the repair in December 2021set out that a previous repair carried out involved gaffer tape being put on the worktop to try and resolve the matter. This was not appropriate even in the case of a temporary repair.
  3. The landlord’s records show that a work order was raised following the repair in December 2021 for a supervisor to inspect the kitchen, as the cabinet doors and worktop were chipped and there were also missing plinths. This was an appropriate initial action for the landlord to take after having attended and spoken to the resident at that time. The landlord’s records show that a supervisor attended the property on 12 January 2022 and that a works order was raised to renew the worktop as well as the sink unit door. The works order noted that the matter was to be passed to major works. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to try to resolve the resident’s concerns, especially in line with its responsibilities under section 16 of HHSRS relating to food safety. Section 16.13 states that the food storage facilities “should be of adequate size of dwelling and should be finished internally and externally with smooth impervious surfaces capable of being readily cleansed and maintained in a hygienic condition”. If a surface was chipped, it would not satisfy this requirement.
  4. The resident enquired about the kitchen in August 2022. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence relating to its actions between January 2022 to August 2022, except for a single reference to a works order on 15 June 2022. The landlord’s records show that this works order was cancelled. No explanation was provided about why the repair to the worktop, drawer and sink unit was cancelled, who made that decision, or when the decision was made. This was not appropriate, and is indicative of issues with the landlord’s decision making, record keeping, or both.
  5. Following the resident contacting the landlord In August 2022, the landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it attempted to chase up the matter with its contractor over the next few weeks to obtain an update on the matter. The response from the contractor was that it needed to reattend to the property, but that it could not confirm when this would take place. The resident confirmed that she was contacted at the end of October 2022 by the landlord’s contractor to arrange an appointment which took place at the end of the month. However, upon arrival the contractor said that it was there for a repair to the kitchen and not a replacement. As the resident was expecting a replacement, the contractor left having not done any work. The landlord’s records show that a new works order was sent to the landlord to approve shortly after this appointment. This was on the basis of a replacement of the kitchen units, worktop and cupboards. On 11 November 2022 this was declined by the landlord, which maintained that the kitchen was not to be renewed but rather repaired.
  6. Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlords’ services. This has not been the case in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint. These record keeping failures amount to a serious failing on the part of the landlord and a missed opportunity by it to ensure it was keeping the resident updated on the issue of its plans for the kitchen. This was unsatisfactory. The events outlined above also indicate inadequate contractor management and/or ineffective communication with the contractor.
  7. In its internal communication, the landlord noted that the kitchen was less than 10 years old and that the resident had been living in the property since 2019. It said that, given this, the kitchen was not due for a replacement. While the age of the kitchen is not in dispute, the age of it alone was not the determinative factor in deciding whether or not it ought to be replaced. This is reflected in the Decent Homes Standard, which acknowledges that a building component may require replacement before it reaches its expected lifetime if it has failed early. The landlord would therefore be expected to deal with early failure, typically on a responsive basis.
  8. In this case it is not noted that 2 separate contractors who attended to the property noted that the kitchen needed to be replaced, as opposed to being repaired, and they sent quotes to the landlord to that effect. In addition, the supervisor who attended the property in January 2022 noted on the works order that was created at the time of the visit that the plinths, drawer, sink unit and worktop needed to be “renewed” and the matter was being passed to the major works team. There was no mention on this works order that the kitchen was to be repaired rather than renewed. This understandably gave the resident an expectation that the kitchen would be replaced by the landlord.
  9. It is noted that, in both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord did not say that the works required to the kitchen would involve repairs and not replacement. The resident has submitted a number of photographs to the Ombudsman to show the condition of her kitchen, although it is not possible to ascertain when these were taken. There are photographs of a cupboard door to a base unit that appears not to be properly attached and with significant damage to the edge, near where the top hinge would be. There are also photos showing missing drawers on a base unit and the upper overhead cupboards not being completely flush when closed. There are further images of multiple holes in one of the upper cupboards, suggesting a movement of the hinge on a previous occasion, as well as several chipped surfaces including to the worktop. While these offer some helpful visual evidence of the condition of the kitchen, the Ombudsman cannot conclude based on these photographs that there was an issue with functionality of the kitchen.
  10. Nevertheless, the state of the cupboard and doors in the photographs does call into question the reasonableness of the landlord’s approach in establishing that the kitchen was suitable for repair and that any proposed repairs being proposed would aim to avoid the likely need for further repairs by the landlord before any planned replacement of the kitchen, which was determined solely by the age of it.
  11. In terms of the impact, the resident has informed the landlord and this Service that she is a professional chef and that as a result “the kitchen is a very important part of the home which needs to be functional, organised and have sufficient storage”. She said she maintains her home and often has family round. She told us the state of the kitchen has affected her ability to host her large family and caused her embarrassment. It is clear that this issue had a significant detrimental impact on the resident’s day-to-day use and enjoyment of the property over an extended period of time, as the kitchen remains in the same state.
  12. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident refused the kitchen repairs when the landlord’s contractor attempted to attend to the property in October 2022. The landlord has also referenced that a further attempt at repairs scheduled for 30 August 2023 (as set out in the stage 2 response) did not take place, although it is not clear why this was the case. This has meant that the impact to the resident over the issue of the state of the kitchen is ongoing.
  13. In all the circumstances, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 response offered compensation of £175 for distress and inconvenience and £250 for the delay to the repair. This total of £425 was in keeping with the level of awards under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in the event of a failing which had adversely affected the resident but where there was no permanent impact. However, in our opinion, the award proposed by the landlord was not proportionate to the level of failure. The landlord repeatedly failed to keep the resident updated on the issue of the repair/replacement and only appeared to act after the resident had contacted it a number of times asking for an update. There was also a significant delay of 7 months between January 2022 and August 2022 during which no action appeared to be taken. Given that the landlord had last inspected the property itself in January 2022, and that it repeatedly declined the contractor’s quotes for a renewal of the kitchen, it would have been appropriate for it to undertake a further inspection to see the current state of the kitchen and confirm whether it could be repaired. However, it did not do this. In addition, the landlord failed to keep accurate records relating to the kitchen repairs. In all the circumstances, Ombudsman considers an award of £650 to be more appropriate given the failures which had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. After logging the resident’s complaint on the day it was made (14 November 2022) the landlord issued the stage 1 response 16 working days later, on 6 December 2022. This was outside of the 10-working-day timescale contained in the complaints policy. While the policy did allow for an extension, this required the landlord to have agreed the extension with the resident. There was no evidence that it informed the resident that it needed an extension to provide its stage 1 response. This was unsatisfactory.
  2. While the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 December 2022, the resident did not ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 until 20 June 2023. This followed the landlord making a goodwill gesture of £420 and notifying the resident that it would now “begin to finalise your complaint case” in June 2023. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 17 August 2023, 43 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. This was again outside of the timescale contained in the complaints policy, even allowing for an extension.
  3. With regard to compensation, the landlord made an award of £75 at stage 2. This was based on a monthly amount of £25 for each calendar month of delay. While it is not clear how the landlord determined the delay in its complaint handling amounted to 3 months, we consider the offer was not reflective of the landlord’s multiple failings. These include the delays in issuing both complaint responses, the lack of communication in relation to the delayed responses, the lack of any promised update following the stage 1 response, and the unacknowledged error regarding the level of compensation.
  4. For this reason, a finding of service failure has been made. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any details of the awards it will make in the event of service failure in complaint handling. The Ombudsman has therefore made an increased award of £125 in relation to the matter. Our award comprises the £75 offered by the landlord for delays, plus an additional £50 for its poor communication and the other failures identified above that it did not recognise in its response. This is in keeping with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure which was acknowledged in part by the landlord, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within the next 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £775, from which it should deduct the amount offered at stage 2 if it has already paid this to the resident. The figure of £775 is made up of:
      1. £650 for its failure in relation to the kitchen repairs/request for replacement.
      2. £125 for its complaint handling failures.
    3. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s kitchen by a suitably qualified independent surveyor to determine its current condition. The resulting report should contain the surveyor’s recommendation as to whether the kitchen should be replaced or repaired. The report should be sent to this Service and the resident.
  2. Within the next 8 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to set out in writing to both the resident and this Service:
    1. Its decision on the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen in light of the surveyor’s report.
    2. The action it proposes to take to remedy the condition of the kitchen, and the anticipated timeframe.