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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202313414)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313414

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a broken immersion heater and his request for reimbursement of private repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord for a third-floor, 2-bedroom flat.
  2. On 19 December 2022, the resident reported a leak from his immersion heater. The landlord arranged for an electrician to attend on the same day, but they found that a plumber also needed to attend. The resident complained on 28 December, stating he had no hot water and was still waiting for a plumber to attend.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 29 December 2022. It said on 22 December it arranged for a plumber to attend, but there could be scheduling delays due to the Christmas period. It agreed to monitor the repair to completion and would assess compensation once it had completed this.
  4. A plumber attended on 6 January 2023 and said the working immersion heater was “tripping out all the time” and was leaking. They said corrosion was visible and it needed replacing urgently. On 19 January, the resident told the landlord if it failed to restore hot water in 10 days, he would seek independent repair and ask the landlord to reimburse him.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 February 2023. The landlord replied on the same day, but this was not its formal stage 2 response. It said it had scheduled the repair for 10 February. It offered £232 compensation. The resident replied the same day, saying the landlord had not considered the damage, had not provided basic facilities, nor considered his well-being. It increased its compensation offer to £362 the same day.
  6. On 16 February 2023, the landlord told the resident the repair scheduled for 10 February did not take place as the contractor did not have a qualified person to complete it. It said it was seeking an alternative contractor. The landlord’s records state it tried to arrange a further appointment on 16 March, but the resident refused. However, the resident later disputed the call took place. A private contractor arranged by the resident completed the repair on 17 March, they said the cylinder was “beyond economical repair”. The resident paid £1429.20 and asked the landlord to reimburse this cost.
  7. On 9 and 11 May 2023, the landlord refused to reimburse the cost of the repair. It said it had not authorised this, and its records show the fault was with the element, not the cylinder. It increased its compensation to £762, which it said was “over half of the immersion replacement.”
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 August 2023. This was in response to the resident’s escalation on 3 February. It said it provided temporary heaters for the 3 months the boiler was not working and had offered £762 compensation, which the resident declined. It said the resident completed the repair without consent, which was a breach of the tenancy. It said its gas team would contact him to check the unit and installation was appropriate.
  9. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman seeking an apology from the landlord, compensation for his time, distress and upset caused. He also wanted full reimbursement for the immersion heater replacement.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a broken immersion heater and leak from the heater pipework

  1. The resident complained on 28 December 2022, as he had been waiting for 9 days for his immersion heater to be repaired. He was without hot water throughout this period.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 29 December 2023 appropriately managed the resident’s expectations on the matter. It confirmed it raised the repair on 22 December and would chase the contractor after the Christmas period. It also said it would monitor the repair to completion, offering some reassurance to the resident.
  3. On 19 January 2023, the resident told the landlord he would arrange for the repair to be completed himself if it did not complete it in 10 days. The landlord responded on 26 January 2023, reassuring the resident it had received and approved a quote. It again managed the residents’ expectations on the matter.
  4. The contractor arranged an appointment for 10 February 2023 to complete the repair, but did not attend on the day. The landlord only explained to the resident on 14 February there was no qualified person to complete the repair, following him chasing this on 13 February.
  5. On 17 March, a private contractor completed the repair for the resident. As such, the resident was left without access to hot water for 88 days. This exceeded the 25 day timescale for completion of repairs in its policy. It is unclear if the repair would have been further delayed had the resident not acted. The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response. The evidence also shows it offered alternate wash facilities or a decant to the resident around 16 February, however, the resident rejected this.
  6. Throughout the complaint, the landlord acknowledged its delays in its correspondence with the resident. It appropriately confirmed it would assess compensation once it completed the repair. It offered £232 on 3 February 2023 and increased this to £362 the same day. It appropriately broke this down in accordance with its compensation policy as £112 statutory compensation for loss of hot water and £250 for inconvenience, the delay and time and effort.
  7. The landlord later increased its compensation to £762 on 11 May 2023. It did not provide a breakdown of this offer as it had previously done. However, its stage 2 response confirmed it was for the length of time without facilities and the delay in resolving the matter. The offer was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy for failings of similar duration, the lack of hot water, and the inconvenience and distress to the resident.
  8. On 23 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to reimburse the cost of the repairs. The landlord did not respond to the resident until 9 May. It refused to reimburse the resident for the cost of the repairs as it had not given the resident permission to undertake the repair work. Its decision was in accordance with its repairs policy and improvements and alterations policy.
  9. The landlord also had other reasons for refusing to reimburse the repair. It said its records showed it believed the element of the heater only needed replacing and not the tank. It also said it had offered a repair to the resident on 16 March 2023, which he had refused. Despite the resident later disputing both points, they were an accurate reflection of the landlord’s records.
  10. The landlord explained further in its stage 2 response that the resident’s repair was a breach of the his tenancy agreement. This was accurate, as the tenancy agreement says that if alterations are made without permission, the resident must reinstate the changes or the landlord could charge for this. It had also stated appropriately on 15 May the resident would be responsible for the maintenance of the heater in future as it had not installed it. Accordingly, the landlord’s explanations and grounds for declining to reimburse the resident were reasonable, and in line with its policy and the tenancy agreement.
  11. The resident raised several inaccuracies with the stage 2 response with the Ombudsman. This included it saying it had provided heaters to the resident, despite there being no space heating issues raised. It also said it would need to send its gas team to inspect the electric immersion heater. The resident stated there was no gas supply to the building. The evidence supports the resident’s concern, especially as heaters were not relevant to his lack of hot water. These inaccuracies affected the robustness of the landlord’s response and this was a failure.
  12. In summary, the landlord was delayed in completing the repairs to the immersion heater. It acknowledged this and offered alternative wash facilities and reasonable compensation. The resident completed the repair privately, and the landlord provided several appropriate reasons why it would not reimburse the cost of this. Inaccurate details in it stage 2 response was a failing however.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 February 2023. The landlord did not provide its complaint response until 8 August. As such, it exceeded the timescale in its complaints policy by 108 working days.
  2. The resident asked for an update on the response on 23 March 2023. On 11 May, the landlord said his complaint was in a “backlog” awaiting allocation. The landlord failed to agree on an extension with the resident as its policy dictates and did not appropriately and proactively manage his expectations.
  3. The landlord apologised for its delayed stage 2 complaint response; however, it stated it had offered compensation in its stage 1 to account for this. This was inappropriate as the delay was in issuing the stage 2 response. Furthermore, the landlord’s final compensation offer of £762 on 11 May 2023 provided no breakdown. It is unclear what amount related to its complaint handling, causing uncertainty on how it determined the amount.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken immersion heater and leak from the heater pipework.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. In light of the failings found in this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £962 within 4 weeks of this report. This comprises of:
    1. £100 for the inaccurate information provided in its stage 2 complaint response.
    2. £100 for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. £762 it offered to the resident on 11 May 2023, if it has not already paid this.
  2. Evidence of compliance with this order must be provided by the deadline.