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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202319234)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319234

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

16 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s disrepair claim, including the associated repairs.
    2. Repairs to the resident’s extractor fans.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s disrepair claim, including the associated repairs

  1. Paragraph 42.e. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which concerns matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
  2. The resident instructed a solicitor to assist her with her multiple repair issues (including concerns that her bath was “sinking”) on 12 January 2023. Between February and March 2023 the resident and landlord’s representatives inspected the resident’s property. Their respective surveyors produced reports which outlined several repairs they considered were required to the property, including works within the bathroom.
  3. On 6 July 2023 the resident told the landlord that she believed her bath was leaking and that this was now causing dampness within her son’s bedroom. She complained to the landlord on 22 August. She said the landlord was not responding to her disrepair claim, nor dealing with the associated repairs. In its responses to the resident’s complaint on 24 August and 10 November, the landlord said it could not respond to the legal claim under its complaints’ process. It gave details of its legal team and said they would contact her. Alternatively, it said that she could contact the team directly, or via her legal representative.
  4. The evidence shows the resident began a claim against the landlord in the County Court on 12 August 2024 and a trial was scheduled for 23 January 2025. In May 2025 both parties told the Service that the hearing did not proceed on that date and they are waiting for the courts to set a new date. The resident has confirmed that she continues to have legal representation. Both the resident and landlord have said that the repairs in the bathroom have now been completed (including the dampness in her son’s bedroom). However, there remains a dispute about what repairs are outstanding.
  5. Based on this information and in line with paragraph 42.e the landlord’s handling of the resident’s disrepair claim, including the associated repairs, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. That is because the resident has begun court proceedings and is waiting for the courts to set a new trial date.
  6. However, the extractor fans issue was not part of the disrepair claim, and is within the Ombudsman’s remit. It is therefore considered in this report.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. She lives in the property with her children.
  2. On 8 June 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the extractor fans in her property were not working. The landlord said it attended to fix the fans on 3 July, but was unable to gain access. The landlord said it rescheduled the appointment on two occasions (26 July and 22 August 2023). However, the resident said the landlord did not attend these appointments.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 August 2023. She said it had not fixed her extractor fans within her expected response time and she complained about the two missed appointments. The landlord responded on 24 August. It said its contractor would contact her to arrange another appointment to repair the fans.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 31 August 2023. The landlord provided another complaint response entitled “stage 1 update” on 13 September. It apologised, and confirmed it had rescheduled the appointment to fix the extractor fans. It offered her £100 in compensation for the delay. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and contacted the Service for advice.
  5. The landlord issued a final response to the resident’s escalated complaint on 10 November 2023. It confirmed this was its “stage 2” response. It apologised for its handling of the extractor fan repairs, and its complaint handling. It said it had repaired the fans on 18 September 2023 and that it would inspect the works on 29 November. It said it had credited £300 to the resident’s rent account as compensation, which superseded its previous offer.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to the Service. She confirmed that the landlord completed all the outstanding works to the extractor fans following the complaint. However, she remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord offered in relation to the complaint handling and handling of repairs. She said that she had taken time off work for the appointments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has complained that the landlord’s actions potentially caused her a loss of earnings. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the loss of a resident’s income. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report. We will, however, consider any distress and inconvenience she may have been caused.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s extractor fans

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the extractor fans. It says it should prioritise repairs to the fans in the kitchen and bathroom as an emergency. Its policy says it will respond to repairs within 24 hours where there is “immediate danger”. Whereas its policy says it aims to respond to routine repairs within 25 calendar days. In this case, the landlord’s records show the resident reported issues with her extractor fans, including those in the bathroom, ensuite and downstairs toilet, on 8 June 2023. However, it did not complete the repairs until over 5 months later, in November 2023. As such, the works were substantially delayed and not completed in line with its policy.
  2. Repairs can be delayed for various reasons. Basic customer service is for landlords to communicate with their residents where they anticipate or experience an unforeseen delay. In this case there is no clear evidence of the landlord fully explaining the reasons for the delay, or of it keeping the resident updated on its progress. It is evident from her communication with the landlord on 24 August 2023 that the situation had been frustrating for the resident. She said that she had been inconvenienced by having to take time off work for the appointments, and the landlord had failed to inform her when it could not attend.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time of the complaint outlines the instances when it will award discretionary compensation, including where it has caused “distress and inconvenience”. It also says it will offer £20 in compensation for each missed appointment.
  4. In this case, the landlord acknowledged its poor service within its complaint responses. The compensation it offered for its mishandling of the repairs included payments for the missed appointments, which were in line with its policy.
  5. This complaint issue arose at the same time as the resident’s disrepair claim, and the potential consequences of the delayed extractor fan repair (increased moisture and/or damp) may be similar to the issues in the claim. This is not in this investigation’s remit. However, the primary impact from the delays to the fan repairs was inconvenience and frustration for the resident. In that circumstance, the compensation the landlord offered was proportionate when considered against the landlord’s policies and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  6. Along with the compensation, the landlord acknowledged its failures in carrying out the repairs to the fans, it apologised and brought forward its inspection date. Taken together, these were reasonable responses to the resident’s complaint.

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

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy which applied at the time of the resident’s complaint says it operates a 2–stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within the next working day and respond within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days. Its policy says it may agree to extend its stage 1 and 2 complaint response times respectively by 10 working days. These timeframes are within the requirements in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code).
  2. The landlord’s final response to the resident’s escalated complaint was significantly delayed. She had asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 31 August 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge her request until 13 September, which was outside its policy timeframe of 2 working days (and the 5 working days timescale outlined in the Code). The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 10 November, which was 51 days after she had requested the escalation. This represents a failure as it did not adhere to the Code, nor its own policy.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord provided a second “stage 1” response on 13 September 2023. It is evident that this confused the resident as she contacted the landlord the same day to say she had already asked it to escalate her complaint on 31 August. This was a further failure as it was not in line with the landlord’s policy, or the Code to issue a second stage 1 response. The Code encourages early resolution of complaints. It says “it is not appropriate to have extra named stages” as “this causes unnecessary confusion”.
  4. The landlord explained to the resident on 13 September 2023 that its final response would be delayed due to backlogs. However, it failed to manage her expectations of when it would respond, which lacked customer focus, and was not in line with its policy and the Code which state any extension will be agreed with the resident. It is clear that the resident was dissatisfied with the delayed response, as she contacted us for advice on dealing with the issue on 28 September and 24 October 2023. 
  5. The landlord apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s escalation request within its final complaint response. Its apology and offer of £80 compensation partly remedied its complaint handling failures. However, what it offered was not proportionate, in line with our remedies guidance, to the resident’s time and trouble chasing the complaint. Because of that it did not fully remedy its poor complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of repairs to the resident’s extractor fans.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £150 to the resident for its poor complaint handling.
  2. This compensation is in addition to the £300 the landlord previously offered.
  3. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of complying with this order by the deadline.