London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202316861)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316861

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

3 June 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 landlord’s communication about a kitchen replacement.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property since 12 February 2005. The property is a 2-bedroom third floor flat within a block which was built in 2005.
On 23 April 2019 the resident told the landlord that her kitchen needed repairs. She said that the work surfaces were worn, cupboards were damaged, drawer handles were coming off, and some drawers had fallen out. The landlord inspected the kitchen on 22 May 2019 and noted that the kitchen was not “in the worst condition” but the worktop had some spots on it and the end panels and cupboards needed to be changed. However, it would not be able to source cupboard doors to match the rest of the units.
The resident called the landlord on 7 August 2019. She said that it had told her when it inspected the kitchen in May, that she was eligible for a new kitchen but she would need to call back in August. The landlord raised another repair job to inspect the kitchen.
On 4 November 2019 the landlord responded to a Councillor enquiry. It said that it had decided it needed to replace the kitchen. However, as it had postponed all its planned works for 2019–2020 it had assessed each case under health and safety criteria. It had decided that it would replace the kitchen in the following year’s programme and confirmed that it had offered to replace the kitchen drawer fronts and worktops in the meantime. However, the resident had refused.
The resident contacted the landlord in September 2022 and it inspected the kitchen again in October 2022. There is evidence that it also inspected the kitchen in January 2023. On 4 July 2023 the landlord raised another repairs job for kitchen repairs.
The resident complained on 8 August 2023. She said that:
1. She had been waiting for the landlord to fit a new kitchen since 2019.
2. The cupboard doors had fallen off, the drawers were broken, and the wood was rotten.
3. Numerous supervisors had visited the property and recently a supervisor had told her that she would not get a new kitchen until 2049.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2023. It said that:
1. It had arranged an appointment for 8 August 2023. However, because a supervisor had already inspected the kitchen, it had cancelled the appointment.
2. It apologised for the inconvenience this caused and said that it had arranged another appointment for 14 August 2023 for operatives to repair the kitchen cupboards.
3. It had put the kitchen on the waiting list for replacement via planned and programmed work after an inspection on 23 January 2023.
4. It would not replace the kitchen during the current financial year. It would contact her at the beginning of the financial year that it was due to be replaced.
5. It would send her a £20 voucher via email as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident cancelled the appointment the landlord had made to make repairs to the kitchen. She asked it to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process on 9 August 2023. It confirmed receipt of her request the same day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 October 2023 to ask it when it would provide a stage 2 complaint response and said that she had not received the £20 voucher. The landlord responded on the same day. It said there was currently a delay in responding to stage 2 complaints. It said that the kitchen was on the planned and programmed works list for replacement and that it had already sent the voucher. However, it would send another.
The resident contacted this Service for assistance and we wrote to the landlord on 8 November 2023. We asked it to provide a stage 2 complaint response by 15 November 2023.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 15 November 2023. It said that:
1. It had asked a contractor to provide a quotation to replace the kitchen and it would continue to update her.
2. It would like to apologise for the poor service she had received. There had been a lack of communication and long delays between responses. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience that chasing the repair and not feeling comfortable in the kitchen would have caused.
3. It offered £2,290 compensation comprising:
  1. £1,080 for the distress caused.
  2. £1,080 for the inconvenience caused.
  3. £80 for the time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
  4. £30 for poor complaint handling.
  5. £20 for a missed appointment.
An internal email dated 16 November 2023 confirmed that the kitchen was scheduled for replacement in 2024–2025. Therefore, the landlord asked the contractor not to quote for a new kitchen after all. It advised the resident of this decision on 1 December 2023 and told her she could request temporary repairs if she wished.
The landlord informed us that it completed the kitchen replacement on 28 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Kitchen replacement

There is no statutory obligation for the landlord to carry out improvement works. However, the resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will “keep in reasonable repair all the fixtures and fittings we provided at the start of the tenancy, unless we believe they have fallen into disrepair through damage or neglect caused by you”. This would reasonably include the kitchen.
It is not the role of this Service to decide whether the kitchen at the property required replacement, our role is to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of problems with the kitchen in a reasonable manner and in line with any relevant policies and procedures. In deciding whether a kitchen should be replaced, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider:
1. The condition of the kitchen.
2. Whether the kitchen meets the Decent Homes Standard (in relation to its age, space, and layout).
A property fails to meet the Decent Homes Standard if it lacks three or more of the following facilities:
1. A kitchen which is 20 years old or less.
2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout.
3. A bathroom which is 30 years old or less.
4. An appropriately located bathroom and WC.
5. Adequate external noise insulation.
6. Adequate size and layout of common entrance areas for blocks of flats.
As the property was built in 2005, the kitchen was less than 20 years old when the resident reported problems with it in 2019. We have no evidence to suggest that the property lacked any of the other facilities.
When the resident first reported the issues with the kitchen in 2019, the landlord inspected it within a reasonable timeframe. There is evidence that it told the resident that it could not replace the kitchen doors like for like. However, we have seen no evidence that it took any further action and the resident called back 3 months later for an update. She then contacted a Councillor. The landlord then explained that it was due to replace the kitchen as part of the following years planned maintenance programme. The landlord’s failure to communicate adequately with the customer therefore cost her time and trouble chasing an update.
It is understandable that the landlord did not complete the kitchen replacement during the following financial year as planned, due to the COVID–19 pandemic. However, we have seen no evidence that it updated the resident during this period.
The landlord’s component renewal procedure dated April 2000 states that when an operative identifies that they are unable to repair they must explain this to the resident and that a supervisor should then inspect. The supervisor must then send the resident confirmation of their findings using a specific outcome letter template.
There is evidence that the resident raised the issue again in September 2022 and January 2023, costing her further time and trouble. The landlord inspected the property again on each occasion. However, we have seen no evidence that it advised her of the outcome of these inspections or sent the letter specified within its procedure. These failures to follow its own procedure cost the resident further time and trouble because she had to keep contacting the landlord. She also spent time attending all the inspection appointments.
The landlord did not communicate well with the resident throughout the process and did not follow its procedure. However, it did offer to complete temporary repairs to the kitchen on several occasions which the resident declined. It also ultimately provided a resolution and offered her £2,180 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. We consider this compensation offer to be reasonable redress in the circumstances of the case. We have recommended that the landlord pays this sum of compensation if it has not already done so and that it ensures that its staff are fully trained on its component renewal procedure.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of an escalation request. It says that in exceptional circumstances it will agree an extension to this timescale with the resident, usually not to exceed a further 10 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code).
The landlord took 71 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint. This unacceptable delay and failure to follow its own policy cost the resident time and trouble because she chased it for a response and contacted us for assistance. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
The landlord’s complaint policy also states that following issue of a stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response it will monitor until all outstanding actions are complete.
The resident had to chase the compensation offered in both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. This cost her further time and trouble and also undermined the complaint handling process.
The landlord failed to adhere to its own policy and the Code which cost the resident time and trouble. However, it offered her £110 compensation at stage 2 of the complaint process to reflect the time and effort this caused. It also offered a further £50 compensation to reflect the time and trouble taken for the resident to chase payment of the compensation offered at stage 2. We consider this compensation offer to be reasonable redress in the circumstances of the case. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to pay this sum of compensation if it has not already done so and to ensure that its staff are fully trained regarding its complaint handling policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about:
1. Communication about a kitchen replacement.
2. Complaint handling

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident the £2,290 compensation previously offered if it has not already done so.
The landlord should ensure that its staff are all fully trained on its component renewal procedure.
The landlord should ensure that its staff are all fully trained on its complaint handling policy.