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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202312433)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312433

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 February 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 handling of the resident’s kitchen cupboard repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in her 3 bedroom house since March 2007. The resident has told this Service that she has an autistic child.
  2. On 13 April 2023 the landlord inspected the resident’s kitchen. It noted that some of the kitchen cupboards doors were missing and needed to be repaired.
  3. On 24 May 2023 the resident made a complaint. She said she was still waiting for the landlord to repair the cupboards. She explained that she had a vulnerable child and had waited a “long” time for the repairs.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response the following day. It said it should have measured the cupboards at its last visit. It was looking for a solution and would monitor the matter. It said that it would update the resident soon.
  5. The landlord’s records show that the resident escalated her complaint on 26 May 2023 by phone. We have not been provided with a call note or any contemporaneous evidence relating to the conversation. Therefore, the resident’s reasons for escalating her complaint are unclear.
  6. On several occasions between the end of May and August 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an acknowledgement and response to her complaint, and for an update on the repairs.
  7. On 16 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it inspected the resident’s kitchen on 9 August 2023 and decided that it was beyond repair. It had referred the matter to its planning team so the kitchen could be replaced. It said that the team would contact the resident to advise her of when the works would start. It apologised for its delay in dealing with the repairs and its delayed stage 2 response. It offered the resident £350 compensation comprised of:
    1. £50 for its delayed stage 2 response.
    2. £200 for time and effort.
    3. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Kitchen cupboard repairs  

  1. In April 2023 the landlord identified that some of the resident’s kitchen cupboards needed to be repaired. However, there is no evidence that it took any further action following the visit. For example, there is no evidence that it raised any follow up inspections or works. This meant it failed to progress the repairs, which was a failing in its handling of the matter.
  2. The resident also incurred time and trouble as she felt she had to raise a complaint in May 2023 in order for her repairs to be resolved. The resident continued to chase for an update over the months that followed. She expressed concerns that the kitchen was not safe and was “falling apart” during this time. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord took any reasonable steps to progress the repairs. The landlord did not inspect the kitchen until 9 August 2023. This was approximately 4 months after it had acknowledged that the kitchen cupboards needed to be repaired. The reason for the delay is unclear. However, during this attendance it determined that the kitchen was beyond repair and referred the matter to its planning team.
  3. It is unclear why this conclusion was not reached in April 2023, or why the further inspection did not take place sooner. However, the evidence suggests that the referral to the planning team could reasonably have taken place sooner. Doing so, may have mitigated the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience and resolved the matter earlier.
  4. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for the time, effort, distress, and inconvenience that had been caused. However, while its offer of £300 went some way to put matters right it did not go far enough.
  5. The resident had to chase the landlord for the repairs over several months. This caused her time, trouble, distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time. Also, during that time she was without the full use of her kitchen. This caused her further distress and inconvenience. Therefore in line with our Remedies Guidance we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 for distress and inconvenience incurred chasing for an update. A further award has been made of £250 for distress and inconvenience incurred as the resident did not have full use of her kitchen during that period. We consider this to be appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. This award should replace the landlord’s original offer. If the landlord has already paid the resident its compensation, the amount paid should be deducted from this award
  6. Overall, the landlord failed to further inspect the resident’s kitchen and consider the necessary works in a timely manner, this meant that its referral for the kitchen to be replaced was avoidably delayed. While it offered compensation for the delay, it was not proportionate for this failing. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen cupboard repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. A stage 1 response will then be issued within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy timescales are in accordance with the our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said that it would look into and monitor the matter and update her. While this was reasonable, there is no evidence to show that the landlord followed through with any of the actions that it said it would in its response. This exacerbated the resident’s distress and inconvenience as the repairs continued to remain unresolved and she was not receiving updates as she was reasonably expecting. It is unclear why the landlord did not follow through with its commitment, nonetheless that it did not was a failing.
  3. The resident also stated her child was vulnerable, and was being affected by the outstanding kitchen repairs. However, the landlord did not address this in its response, nor is there evidence that it made any enquiries with the resident in relation to this. Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make enquiries to ensure that any potential health and safety risks were mitigated. That it did not was unreasonable.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 May 2023 by phone. However, the landlord failed to maintain a record of the call. This was a failing and as a result, the details of the conversation and escalation request are unknown.
  5. Also, on 2 and 23 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to acknowledge her escalated complaint. Despite this there is no evidence that it did. This was not in accordance with the Code that stated, “on receipt of the escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking.”
  6. On 31 July 2023 the landlord told the resident that it was unable to advise her when she would expect a response to her escalated complaint. Given that approximately 2 months had already lapsed since the resident escalated her complaint, that the landlord was unable to provide a response date is concerning. In addition, this meant that the resident incurred further time and trouble chasing it for an update in early August 2023. This was also not in accordance with the Code that states that landlords should not exceed a further 20 working days without good reason.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 August 2023. This was approximately 3 months after the resident escalated her complaint. This was a significant deviation from its policy timescales. Furthermore, the delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she had to wait for a prolonged period for an answer to her complaint.
  8. The landlord’s offer of £50 was not proportionate given the delays and associated distress and inconvenience. In addition, this investigation has highlighted complaint handling failures which were not included in the landlord’s response. Therefore, in line with our Remedies Guidance we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the failures detailed in this case. This should replace its original compensation offer
  9. Overall, the landlord failed to:
    1. demonstrate that it acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint in accordance with its policy and that of the Code.
    2. provide the resident with a specific date as to when she should reasonably expect its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. issue its stage 2 complaint response within its policy timescales and that of the Code.
    4. demonstrate that it responded to all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
  10. These failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  11. On 8 February 2024 the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlord must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen cupboard repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £650 compensation comprised of:
      1. £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her kitchen cupboard repairs.
      2. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
      3. if the landlord has already paid the resident the compensation it offered in its complaint responses, this may be deducted from the overall total.
    3. contact the resident to ascertain whether she has any current concerns about her kitchen repairs.
  2. The landlord should consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.