London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202312368)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312368

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 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 is about the landlord’s:
   1. Communication about external cyclical maintenance works.
   2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a 3-bedroom property in a residential housing block. The freehold for the property is owned by the landlord, which is a housing association.
3. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 5 January 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on the same day. He said:
   1. He had received a letter on 23 September 2022 about external cyclical maintenance works at his block affecting his property. He had raised questions with the landlord about the works, costings, and works quality in an email he sent to it on 6 October 2022. The landlord did not respond to him, so he sent a further email on 15 November 2022.
   2. The landlord replied to him on 8 December 2022 explaining that it had removed his property from the works programme, but it did not provide any reasons for this decision. He replied to the email on the same day, but the landlord did not reply to him.
   3. He wanted the landlord to reply to his emails, explain when it would complete the external works on his property, explain how it would share the costs of the works with the other occupants in the block, make sure it completed the works to a good standard, engage with resident in good faith, and deal with his complaint promptly.
4. The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 23 January 2023. He said he had previously made a complaint about the landlord’s plans to complete cyclical maintenance works. The landlord had acknowledged his complaint on the same day, but it had not sent its response within 10 working days. He wanted it to explain what was happening, as he needed to have the cyclical maintenance carried out at his property. He wanted to be clear about the terms under which the works would be taking place. He also wanted clarification of the costs and reassurance about the quality of the work.
5. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 27 January 2023. It apologised that it had not responded to the resident to explain why it had removed his property from a cyclical works contract. It also said:
   1. It should have provided a prompt response, and it was sorry he had to complain to get a response to his queries.
   2. Its contractor had carried out a validation of his property, and it had removed the property from the programme for budgetary reasons.
   3. Its section 20 team had incorrectly issued a section 20 notice to the resident for the cyclical works because a contractor had sent them the property validation details.
   4. It was unable to confirm if it would carry out the works in its next work programme, as its team was still developing this.
   5. Its contractor had worked on a cyclical decoration contract for 10 years and its consultant checked and signed off the completed works.
   6. If it included the resident’s property in its next works programme, its contractor would provide a cost breakdown. It would issue these costs as an estimate with a section 20 notice, and it would provide final costs when it completed the works.
   7. It was sorry it could not provide any more information about when it would complete the works. It could ask the contract manager to contact him about this if he wanted.
6. The Ombudsman escalated the complaint on behalf of the resident on 20 September 2023, explaining that the resident had not received a response to his complaint of 23 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on the same day, and it responded to the stage 2 complaint on 27 September 2023. It said it was sorry the resident was unhappy, and it summarised the history of the complaint. It also said:
   1. It had been unable to find emails the resident had sent to it on 15 November 2023 and 8 December 2022.
   2. It sincerely apologised for how it had managed the complaint and for its lack of response to the resident’s emails. This had not shown the level of service he should expect, and it had failed to follow its policies.
   3. It should have explained that it could not escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 23 January 2023, so that the resident knew the position of his complaint.
   4. It said that not responding to the resident’s emails could have made him feel ignored. It apologised and said it was not acceptable for it not to respond.
   5. It had completed staff recruitment and training, and it had improved its complaint handling services and had learned from complaints.
   6. Its earlier response had fully responded to the complaint. Human error had caused his property to be passed to its section 20 staff when it should not have been, which it apologised for.
   7. Its programme of works was prioritised based on several factors, but other properties had a more urgent need for works so it had not included the resident’s property.
   8. Cyclical decorations would usually take place every 5 to 7 years. It was unable to provide a date for when works would take place at the resident’s property. When it did complete the works, it would carefully check the quality of the work.
   9. It would continue to complete repairs it was responsible for, and the resident could report window repairs using the contact details it had provided.
   10. It offered the resident £50 compensation for poor complaint handling, £50 for time and effort caused by raising the complaint, and £40 for any distress it had caused by incorrectly issuing a section 20 letter.
7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 December 2023. He said that the landlord had not resolved the issues he had raised in his complaint or provided any timeframes for the external maintenance works. He explained that, to put the matter right, the landlord should explain when it planned to complete the external works in line with the schedules in the resident’s lease.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. The resident’s complaint concerns information the landlord provided to him about planned cyclical maintenance works, the estimated costs, and the landlord’s response to the queries he raised about the works. The Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the level or the amount of service charges and/or decide whether service charges are reasonable or payable. However, we can review complaints about the administration of works, the services charged for, and how the landlord has communicated about these matters. This is in line with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, which says we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent, or the amount of the increase of service charges or rent.
9. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident could get free, independent legal advice about this from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE).
10. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the level of the service charge, we have considered the landlord’s communication about the matters, as well as any general distress and inconvenience that the resident may have experienced because of any failures by the landlord.

Communication about external maintenance works

11. The resident’s lease sets out that the landlord handles the repair and maintenance of the resident’s building and estate. This includes the structure, exterior, and communal parts of the building. The landlord is also entitled to recover its reasonable costs in upholding these obligations from the leaseholder as a service charge. The landlord can recover the costs of the works programmes in line with the resident’s lease as a variable service charge. To do so, it must follow its own procedures and Section 20 legislation.
12. The landlord sent a Section 20 letter to the resident on 23 September 2022 saying that it planned to complete cyclical decorations affecting the resident’s property. It said that he could send any observations about the works programme to the landlord by 28th October 2022. We have not seen a copy of the Section 20 notice, nor have we seen the specific information it used to decide the level of the works and where it planned to complete the works.
13. Landlords are expected to keep and provide clear records of the housing services they provide. The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence of its handling of the cyclical maintenance programme. This would include the Section 20 notice it provided to the resident, the information it used to decide what properties it included in the programme, and why it had removed the resident’s property from the works. We have been able to assess the complaint based upon the information provided by the resident and the landlord. However, the landlord’s failure to keep and/or provide detailed records of its handling of the Section 20 works programme was a failing by it.
14. The resident sent observations to the landlord on 6 October 2022, but it did not respond to the resident until 8 December 2022. The landlord had provided the leaseholder with a deadline for sending responses of 28 October 2022 within the Section 20 notice. This ensured the landlord met its requirement to provide 30 days for all residents to provide comments. It was reasonable for there to be some time after this date for the landlord to compile these comments and respond. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have responded to the resident within 30 days of its deadline. Therefore, the over 2 months it took to respond to him from October to December 2022 was unreasonable. Furthermore, this caused the resident to incur time and trouble in chasing the landlord’s response on 15 November 2022 and 8 December 2022. The landlord said in its final complaint response that it had been unable to find the emails the resident had sent to it on these dates. This was a further record keeping failing by it.
15. The landlord explained to the resident on 8 December 2022 that it had removed his property from the works programme and therefore he could disregard the Section 20 notice it had previously issued. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that its decision to remove the property had been due to budgetary reasons and for it to apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused. However, the landlord did not explain when it would complete the works it had planned to complete in keeping with its obligation under the resident’s lease. The landlord missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations, and it did not respond to his enquiries within a reasonable timescale. This led to him raising the matters as a complaint that could have been avoided.
16. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 27 January 2023, when it apologised for its poor communication. This was appropriate to recognise that its delays were likely to have affected the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s housing services. It explained how its error in issuing a Section 20 notice had happened, and it said that it was developing a future works programme, but it could not yet confirm whether it would include works at the resident’s property. It also addressed the resident’s concerns about the quality of its works by explaining that its qualified contractor would post-inspect the work upon completion.
17. It was appropriate for the landlord to have provided this information to be transparent about its works programming services. Furthermore, it was reasonable for it to explain that it could not say when it would complete the works at the resident’s property to manage his expectations. However, it could have gone further by referring to the dates it had previously completed cyclical works at the resident’s property, and by explaining the expected timescales it worked towards when completing cyclical maintenance. The landlord’s failure to do so resulted in the resident escalating the matter on 20 September 2023.
18. The landlord sent its final complaint response to the resident on 27 September 2023. It said that its stage 1 response had fully responded to the complaint, and it apologised again for its communication delays. In addition to the advice in its stage 1 response, it said that the resident’s property was not yet due the cyclical maintenance works, which usually took place every 5 to 7 years. It also repeated its apology for its error in issuing the Section 20 notice and it offered him £40 compensation for any distress this may have caused.
19. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress the landlord offered had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
20. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that incorrectly issuing him a Section 20 notice may have caused distress to the resident and to offer him compensation for this service failing. However, the offer was low and was not proportionate to the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident under the circumstances. This is including because the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends a minimum of £50 compensation to recognise less serious failures. Furthermore, it did not consider the time and trouble that pursuing the matter as a service request was likely to have caused to the resident. Therefore, taking all matters into account, we have found service failure in the landlord’s communication about external cyclical maintenance works.
21. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £60, as well as the £40 it previously offered him if it has not already done so. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where a landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right but did not fully address the likely inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident. Furthermore, such compensation is recommended where the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the likely effect of the failings found by our investigation.
22. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings this investigation report has found, and to write to the resident with information about when it will complete the cyclical maintenance works at his property.
23. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its practices, processes, and procedures following our special investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. This order addressed the landlord’s handling of knowledge and information, complaints, and compensation. The landlord provided evidence in January 2024 that demonstrated compliance with our previous order. Therefore, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

24. There were service failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
    1. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 5 January 2023 until 27 January 2023, which was 6 working days later that its 10–working-day complaint policy target response timescale for stage 1 complaints.
    2. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint, in line with paragraph 5.8 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of the complaint, which said that landlords must confirm the decision on the stage 1 complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
    3. Did not explain to the resident in its stage 1 response of 27 January 2023, that it could not escalate the complaint to stage 2, as he had requested on 23 January 2023. The landlord missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and be clear about the handling of the complaint.
    4. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 23 January 2023 until 27 September 2023. This was 153 working days later than its 20–working-day complaint policy target response timescale for stage 2 complaints.
    5. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 2 complaint in line with paragraph 5.16 of the Code, which said that landlords must confirm the decision on the stage 2 complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
25. The landlord reviewed its complaint handling in its final complaint response. It recognised that it should have explained sooner that it could not escalate the complaint to stage 2 before it had sent the resident a stage 1 response. It explained that it had recruited staff and completed further training to improve its complaint procedures. It also apologised for the time and trouble its complaint handling may have caused the resident, and it offered him £100 compensation.
26. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its complaint handling failings and explain its recruitment and training plans to put matters right and learn from the outcome of the complaint. The landlord’s compensation procedure says that it may offer compensation if it did not respond to or process a complaint within agreed response times. It was therefore reasonable for it to offer an award of compensation in recognition of the likely effect this had on the resident.
27. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was reasonable to recognise the likely frustration caused by its poor complaint handling, and it was proportionate to the effect that its failures had on the resident. This is because this was line with the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to fully address the likely inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident by such failings, including delays in getting matters resolved. As such, the landlord has offered redress to the resident for the poor complaint handling which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s communication about external cyclical maintenance works.
29. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of communication about external cyclical maintenance works.
    2. Pay the resident the £40 compensation offered in the stage 2 response for any distress it may have caused by incorrectly issuing him a section 20 letter if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay the resident another £60 compensation for the likely time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience its communication about external cyclical maintenance works may have caused to the resident.
    4. Write to the resident to explain when it plans to complete the cyclical maintenance works referred to in this investigation at the resident’s property, in keeping with the terms of his lease.
31. The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Recommendations

32. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered in the stage 2 response for its poor complaint handling if it has not already done so.
    2. Review its management of knowledge and information in relation to the failings identified in this case.