London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202321365)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321365

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 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

Complaint A

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the late resident’s request to remove a dead fox from the garden.
We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the late resident’s complaint.

Complaint B

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the late resident’s front door replacement.
We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the late resident’s complaint.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom, 1st floor flat. The late resident became a tenant in 1983. Her representative, her adult child, helped bring her complaint to us. For clarity, we will refer to all correspondence between the landlord and the late resident / her adult child as being from the late resident. This determination deals with two separate complaints and final response letters. We have labelled them Complaint A and B.
Complaint A refers to a dead fox in the communal gardens. The late resident reported this to the landlord on 11 May 2022. As it was still there the following day the late resident removed the fox. She contacted the landlord to ask it to cancel the job. The landlord told the late resident the job had already been cancelled. The late resident complained and asked to speak to a manager to discuss why the job had been raised in the first place and why she was not informed when it was cancelled. We have seen evidence the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 2 September 2022. It partially upheld the complaint. It said until she called it was not aware the job had been cancelled as the contractor did not inform it. It had spoken to the contractor about it, they apologised as did the landlord.
The late resident asked to escalate the complaint on 6 September 2022. She said she would like the landlord to explain why 15 weeks had passed without a response and why it did not apologise for this in its stage 1 response. The landlord sent its final response letter for both complaint A and B on the same day, 22 August 2023. The landlord said it should have raised a query to the local officer to ask the caretaker to remove the fox. It said it could not explain why it raised a job to remove the dead fox or why the late resident was not informed the job had been cancelled. It apologised for its lack of communication and complaint handling. It acknowledged it must learn from this complaint and raised learning points with its teams. It awarded the late resident £360 compensation.
Complaint B refers to the front door replacement. The late resident contacted the landlord on 2 December 2022 to see what was happening with the replacement door. She was told the contractor had cancelled the job. The late resident requested someone from the landlord’s management team call her back to tell her why this had happened, why she had not been told about this, and why it had been left for so long. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 December 2022, upholding the late resident’s complaint. It said the contractor had cancelled the job, but it was not sure why. The landlord reraised this.
The late resident contacted the landlord in response as she said she had not asked for a complaint to be raised. She wanted someone in management to call her to provide more details. The landlord accepted this as an escalation request on 25 January 2023 when it said it could not give a time frame for its final response letter due to a backlog. It sent its final response letter on 22 August 2023, awarding the late resident £580 compensation. In this the landlord said it explored why the previous jobs had been cancelled. The landlord measured up for the new door on 13 June 2023. It was replaced on 30 November 2023.
The late resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, citing a lack of justice that the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for its failings. In resolution of the complaint, she sought for the landlord to do this.

Assessment and findings

Complaint A

The late resident‘s request to remove a dead fox from the garden

The landlord queried this request internally before it raised a job to collect and dispose of the fox. This illustrated the unusual nature of the request and a desire to take the correct course of action. However, in the landlord’s final response letter it recognised it did not get it right. It should have raised this to a local officer. We acknowledge this would have been frustrating for the late resident. However, it is something which the landlord identified it can learn from in its final response letter.
The late resident did the right thing by calling the landlord back once she had removed the fox. When the contractor cancelled the job without advising either party, it was likely to have led to frustration for the late resident. Additionally, this would have been frustrating for the landlord. It is imperative it knows what jobs the contractor is due to complete and what it is not going to, so other arrangements can be made. It can be difficult for a landlord to provide explanations if a contractor takes a decision and does not provide reasoning for this. It was positive to see in its stage 1 response the landlord said it spoke to the contractor about this. In the final response letter, the landlord quite clearly stated it could not explain why the late resident was not told the contractor cancelled the job but it accepted responsibility and apologised fully.
The landlord’s final response letter included staff interactions, of which we have seen evidence. This was a transparent way to inform the late resident what happened. However, it included some events which the late resident disputed and which we have not seen evidence of. This includes reference to a phone call between the parties on 13 May 2022. Also, that it sent a stage 1 response on 25 May 2022, but it has no record of this. While we understand the landlord can only report information its employees have recorded, we have not seen evidence of these interactions.
The landlord awarded the late resident compensation totalling £360. As we are assessing the complaint handling separately, we have removed the amounts awarded for this. Therefore, the landlord offered £160 for its failings. This comprised of:
1. £50 for lack of communication about the job cancellation.
2. £50 for not informing the local officer about the fox.
3. £40 for the late resident’s distress and inconvenience.
4. £20 for the late resident’s time and effort.
The landlord in its final response letter adhered to our dispute resolution principles, in that it acted fairly by apologising, tried to put things right, and demonstrated that it could learn from the outcome. The landlord’s initial response failed in this instance, but the landlord provided compensation in recognition of this failure. We believe that this was satisfactory in resolving the complaint and therefore have not ordered the landlord to take any further action.

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

The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This allows 5-working days to acknowledge the complaint and 10–working days to issue its stage 1 response. Final response letters should be issued 20-working days after the escalation date, this can be extended by a further 10-working days.
The Code states the landlord should provided a resident with information of how to escalate a complaint. Any requests for escalation to stage 2 must be acknowledged within 5–working days of the escalation request being received.
The landlord advised it had noted that it sent a stage 1 response on 25 May 2022, but it did not have a record of this. The late resident has provided us with a stage 1 response. She says the landlord emailed her this on 2 September 2022. This is on headed paper, and we have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this. It also coincided with when the landlord spoke with the late resident. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to accept this was the landlord’s stage 1 response.
When she raised her complaint on 12 May 2022, the late resident received an automated response saying someone would be in touch in a few days. She chased the landlord for a response on 28 August 2022, the landlord sent the stage 1 response on 2 September 2022. The landlord did not act in line with the Code or its policy by missing the 10-working day target.
The stage 1 does not, as the late resident highlighted, give information concerning how to escalate the complaint. This is in contradiction to the Code.
The late resident asked to escalate her complaint on 6 September 2022, but this was not acknowledged. The late resident chased the landlord on 6 October 2022. She then called the landlord on 26 July 2023, and this is when it acknowledged the escalation request. She received the final response letter on 22 August 2023. This was in target from the date the landlord accepted the escalation request. However, as the landlord delayed its acceptance of this, it did not act in line with the Code. This would have negatively impacted the late resident, she clearly illustrated to us how frustrating this was for her.
In the landlord’s final response letter, it did not apologise for the stage 1 delay. It also did not respond to the late resident’s query why in the stage 1 response it partially upheld the complaint rather than upheld the response. The late resident has queried why this was not fully upheld. We have not seen evidence the landlord addressed this.
In recognition of its failures the landlord awarded the late resident a total of £200 for the complaint handling failures. This is comprised of:
1. £100 (£10 per month) for complaint handling delays.
2. £50 for the stage 1 response not being tracked.
3. £50 for its complaint handling.
Looking at the timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy and the time the late resident took to request to escalate her complaint. We have assessed that the late resident should have received her final response letter by 5 July 2022. The landlord issued this on 22 August 2023, therefore the landlord should increase the compensation for that element from £100 to £135 to allow for these additional months.
The landlord did not fully manage the complaint in line with the Code or its complaints policy. The final response letter went some way to recognising this, but we have found additional failings such as the misinformation about the stage 1, including the issue date, the lack of escalation information in it, the additional escalation acknowledgement delay, and the landlord not fully responding to the late resident’s complaint. As such we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the late resident’s complaint.
We have ordered the landlord pay the late resident’s estate £335, which includes of the previous compensation offer, the following:
1. £135 (£10 per month) for complaint handling delays.
2. £50 for the stage 1 response not being tracked.
3. £150 for its complaint handling.

Complaint B

The landlord’s handling of the front door replacement

The late resident said she initially raised the front door replacement request on 7 August 2021 via the landlord’s online repair reporting form. In the landlord’s final response letter, it cited this and did not dispute it. The landlord did not provide us with its targets to replace a front door.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete work in a reasonable timeframe. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the work. In the information provided to us, the landlord noted there was a 15-week lead time to manufacture the door. We will allow a 2-week administration period, therefore we consider 17 weeks to be reasonable in this matter, or by 3 December 2021. In this case the landlord completed the renewal on 30 November 2023, therefore it took a further 24 months to complete this.
The late resident said that the front door’s weather bar rotted and fell off, she reported tripping on this on 17 June 2023. In the final response letter, the landlord said this could not have been avoided due to the wait for the front door. We recognise the landlord is referring to when it made the order. However, the late resident has advised how frustrating she found this response. If the landlord managed this situation differently the front door would have been replaced before June 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought to accelerate the door replacement given the length of time that had passed.
In the stage 1 response the landlord said it would monitor the case until the front door replacement was completed. We have not seen evidence the landlord did this and there was no progression until the late resident chased the landlord. After the landlord saying it was awaiting a new quote from a contractor on 25 January 2023, we can see the late resident chased in mid-May 2023. She then received a text message from the landlord on 18 May 2023 concerning an appointment for measuring the door. We have not seen evidence the landlord contacted the late resident with a door update in the 4 months prior to sending the text message. The late resident highlighted how frustrated she was by this. This frustration stems from the landlord’s lack of communication rather than the text message itself. The landlord should have provided regular updates. This lack of communication added to the late resident’s frustration and loss of confidence in the landlord.
We further saw how frustrating the late resident found the delay and the lack of communication around it, by the fact she raised a complaint and chased the landlord for responses. The late resident approached different staff members to seek an answer, but she reported either not being responded to or receiving conflicting information. This would have impacted the landlord-tenant relationship.
The landlord explained the contractors’ quotes were too high which is why it had cancelled the jobs. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have recorded that information given that was a decision it took. The landlord advised the jobs were cancelled to bring the door replacement in-house. The late resident queried why after this, another contractor was asked to quote for the work. We can understand the landlord seeking the best value option, however this should have been communicated to the late resident. It should have been easier for the landlord to answer these queries for the late resident.
The landlord stated each contractor had to take door measurements to verify what size door to order. If time had passed the contractor would need to revisit to do this again. The landlord should recognise the impact and disruption for the late resident by having these additional visits. She stated she had 6 visits to measure the front door.
The landlord awarded the late resident £580 in compensation. Again, we have removed the awards for complaint handling. Therefore, the landlord offered £420 for its failings. This comprised of:
1. £300 for service failures.
2. £60 for the late resident’s distress and inconvenience.
3. £60 for the late resident’s time and effort.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the main failings in its handling of the front door replacement. However, there were points which the landlord did not adequately resolve. It evidenced it could learn from the complaint but did not evidence how it would, so it did not adhere to this part of the dispute resolution principles. Again, the landlord’s fair processes failed in this instance, however the landlord provided compensation to try to put this right.
In accordance with the Scheme, we find there was a failure in service.
We have ordered the landlord pay the late resident’s estate £620, which includes of the previous compensation offer. This is comprised of:
1. £300 for service failures.
2. £60 for the late resident’s distress and inconvenience.
3. £60 for the late resident’s time and effort.
4. £100 – 5 x £20 for each measuring up appointment which did not result in the door replacement.
5. £100 for the landlord’s poor communication, including sending the text message.
The late resident was clear what she would like from the landlord, detailing each element she would like acknowledgement of and an apology for. While respecting the late resident’s viewpoint, we were concerned this might not achieve a positive outcome for either party. Our focus is to try to repair the relationship. Therefore, it may be more productive to have the opportunity for the late resident’s representative and the landlord to meet and discuss what went wrong. This will form a recommendation of this report.

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

The landlord issued its stage 1 response to complaint B in line with its timeframes. The late resident asked to escalate the complaint on 7 December 2022. She chased the landlord for a reply, and it was acknowledged on 25 January 2023. The landlord said it could not give a timeframe for its final response. On 26 July 2023 when the late resident spoke with the landlord about complaint A, she confirmed complaint B was outstanding. The landlord appropriately picked both up.
The landlord did not respond to the initial escalation request and only did so when chased, it also could not give a timeframe for the final response letter. This meant the late resident experienced poor complaint handling. The impact of this on the late resident is that she was likely have lost confidence in the landlord and its complaints service.
The landlord recognised this and awarded the late resident a total of £160 for its complaint handling failure. This is comprised of:
1. £60 (£10 per month) for complaint handling delays.
2. £100 for its complaint handling.
Looking at the timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy. We have assessed that the late resident should have received the final response by 23 January 2023. The landlord issued this on 22 August 2023. We have worked out this was a 7-month delay, the landlord calculated a month less. We would not make a finding for this, especially when the landlord acknowledged and made awards for its failings. As such, in accordance with the Scheme, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

Complaint A

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the handling of the late resident‘s request to remove a dead fox from the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the late resident’s complaint.

Complaint B

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the front door replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the late resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

On top of the £940 already offered, the landlord is ordered to pay late resident’s estate an additional £335 to account for the failings we have found that went unaddressed. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £135 for the additional failings in the landlord’s handling of complaint A.
2. £200 for the additional failings in the landlord’s handling of the front door replacement.
3. This makes total compensation of £1,275 to be paid to the late resident’s estate.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

We recommend the landlord offer a meeting with the late resident’s representative, with the opportunity for third party mediation if desired. The purpose of the meeting is to re-establish the relationship. It will be an opportunity to discuss the concerns regarding the handling of the front door and complaints. The late resident’s representative is not obliged to attend if she does not wish to.