London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202322448)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322448

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 March 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 heating and hot water repairs in the resident’s property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident lives in a two-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord dated 2001.
4. The resident reported a heating and hot water repairs to the landlord between March 2022 and December 2022. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 23 December 2022. The resident raised a new stage 1 complaint about the boiler repairs via the telephone on 2 May 2023. He said that his boiler had been breaking down and the landlord had caused an unacceptable delay in resolving the fault.
5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 May 2023, and it sent him a stage 1 response on 17 May 2023. It said:
   1. It apologised for the difficulties the resident had experienced with its repairs service which was not the level of service it expected to provide.
   2. It had repaired the boiler on 16 May 2023.
   3. It would offer him £228 as compensation. It broke this down as £68 for a heating and hot water fault lasting 17 days, £80 for inconvenience, and £80 for distress.
6. The resident escalated the complaint on 18 May 2023 in which he said:
   1. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s miscommunication and its poor service.
   2. He was dissatisfied with its offer of compensation which was lower than the compensation it provided in December 2022 when his boiler had broken down for 6 days.
   3. Under the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 landlords should not leave residents without access to heating and hot water for very long. He expected the landlord to carry out repairs within a reasonable time.
   4. He had not had heating and hot water for 17 days, and it had not communicated effectively.
   5. He had experienced freezing weather, and he had a 23 month old baby who had a chest infection, so he had made arrangements for his family to live elsewhere.
7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 2 October 2023, and it replied to him on 6 October 2023. Its response included a timeline of the boiler repairs it had completed, and it said:
   1. It had previously explained that its earlier compensation award addressed a boiler fault in the winter months in December 2022. It had valued its May 2023 compensation offer lower because that boiler fault happened during warmer summer months.
   2. It had increased its compensation award by £50 on 18 May 2023. The resident said he remained dissatisfied and that he wished to escalate the complaint.
   3. It apologised for any confusion a gas engineer may have caused by saying a leak on the boiler was causing the boiler pressure to drop. It had investigated the matter, and it could confirm that it had installed new parts to repair the boiler on 16 May 2023.
   4. It appreciated the distress and inconvenience moving his family from the property was likely to have caused and it apologised for this.
   5. It should have managed the repairs more effectively and sooner and its level of service was not reflective of the standards it aimed to achieve.
   6. It reoffered the £278 compensation it had previously offered the resident. Additionally it offered him a further £50 for its delay responding to the stage 2 complaint, £50 for poor communication, £30 for time and effort, and £100 for distress and inconvenience, totalling £508.
8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. He explained that, to put the matter right, the landlord should show that it had learned from the complaint, and it had put in place measures to stop similar happenings. He also wanted it to increase its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident on 23 December 2022. It offered the resident a compensation award of £344 for its handling of heating and hot water repairs and its communication. The landlord explained that if the resident was not happy with its response and its compensation offer he could escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. The resident replied to the landlord to thank it for its compensation offer. He did not escalate the matter to stage 2. This investigation focuses on the resident’s 2 May 2023 complaint because the previous complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure.
10. The resident sent another separate complaint to the landlord in April 2023, about its handling of communal repairs, fly tipping, pest control issues, a satellite dish, water leaks and the landlord’s communication about repairs. The landlord provided its final stage 2 response about these matters to the resident on 6 December 2023 which the Ombudsman addressed under case reference 202308704.
11. The resident explained to the landlord in his stage 2 complaint of 18 May 2023 that its delay in completing the boiler repairs had affected his mental health. He also referred to the impact this had on the health of his family. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts can give evidence. They have a duty to the court to give unbiased views on the type, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Courts and insurers are also the most effective places for disputes about property damage because they can decide liability for damages, which we cannot. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so and are not bound by legal rules of evidence. Therefore, the resident’s concerns about the effect of the repair delays on his health and his family’s wellbeing are better dealt with via the courts in keeping with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme.

Heating and hot water repairs

12. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord must keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. It must also complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The tenancy agreement also says the landlord will keep the installations, services, fittings, and fixtures of the property in good repair.
13. The resident reported no heating or water in the property on 30 April 2023, which was 2 days after the landlord completed an annual gas service at the property on 28 April 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs where there is an immediate danger to a resident within 24 hours. It also responds to routine day-to-day repairs within 25 calendar days. The landlord attended the property and repressurised the boiler on 1 May 2023 which was in keeping with its emergency repair policy timescales.
14. The resident reported a further boiler fault to the landlord on 2 May 2023. It sent an operative to complete a repair later the same day in keeping with its repairing obligations. The engineer found a fault which required replacement parts to prevent the boiler from losing pressure. While this repair was likely to cause a level of inconvenience to the resident while waiting for parts to arrive, this was outside the landlord’s control.
15. The gas contractor notified the landlord on 2 May 2023 that it had attended to 5 breakdowns at the property since May 2022. It would have been reasonable for it to consider whether there were any wider concerns with the condition of the boiler. However, there is no evidence that the engineer recommended a boiler replacement, nor is there any evidence that it considered the boiler repair to be a hazard or present an health and safety concerns. The engineer was suitably qualified to inspect the boiler and to diagnose the fault and the landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its gas contractor. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to order new parts for the boiler to remedy the fault and reinstate the heating supply.
16. The engineer told the resident that he could install the parts on 5 May 2023. However the landlord advised the resident that it had booked the appointment for 9 May 2023 allowing time for the parts to arrive. It was reasonable for the landlord to have booked an appointment when it knew it would be able complete the repair. This avoided the potential for a wasted appointment and any inconvenience this may have caused to the resident.
17. The landlord left a voicemail for the resident to call it back on 8 May 2023, but he had been unable to make contact when he did so later the same day. The resident’s telephone call was held in a queue until he could no longer wait, therefore the landlord did not explain that it had cancelled the appointment it had scheduled for the following day. It would have been better if the landlord had explained in its voicemail that it had cancelled the appointment. Alternatively, it should have called him back to provide the information in advance of the appointment. This resulted in the resident waiting at home for an appointment that did not take place and caused him further time, trouble, and inconvenience.
18. The landlord addressed its poor communication with the resident in its previous complaint response of December 2022, and in its separate complaint response on 28 April 2023. It apologised to the resident for communication delays, dropped calls, and for not calling him back. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of communication about repairs within case 202308704. However, as previously outlined, there is some evidence that the landlord had not communicated effectively with the resident about repair appointments in this case, thereby adding further frustration to the resident.
19. The resident made contact with the landlord on 9 May 2023. The landlord changed an appointment it had arranged to take place on 8 June 2023 to 16 May 2023. This was in response to the resident saying he had been without heating and hot water since 5 May 2023. This was reasonable under the circumstances to limit any further inconvenience the matter was likely to have caused the resident. Additionally it was right for it to ensure it repaired the boiler in keeping with its 25 day routine repair policy timescale.
20. The landlord installed parts and completed the boiler repair on 16 May 2023. It responded to his stage 1 complaint about the matter the next day. It reviewed its handling of the matter again in its final response on 6 October 2023.
21. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress it offered had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
22. The landlord apologised to the resident for its repair handling failings and for any distress this may have caused to him and his family. It recognised that it had not provided the level of service it expected to deliver which had likely caused him inconvenience. It also explained that its December 2022 compensation award had been higher in response to the colder weather conditions at the time of that boiler fault.
23. The landlord’s compensation procedure says that it may offer compensation if it does not deal with repairs satisfactorily and where its failure has caused a loss of heating and hot water beyond its agreed response times. It was reasonable for it to offer the resident compensation in recognition of the likely affect its repairs handling delays had on him. However, its final response could have gone further by explaining any lessons it had learned from the complaint and by setting out what it would do to prevent similar matters from happening again. This was a missed opportunity for it to manage the resident’s expectations and improve his confidence in its repair service.
24. The landlord’s compensation policy does not refer to any variance between the summer and winter months in its discretionary awards. However, it refers to the government’s right to repair legislation which provides different statutory compensation awards for losses of heating between 31 October and 1 May, and between 1 November and 30 April. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will offer discretionary compensation in a manner that is empathetic, fair, and proportionate. It was entitled to offer a discretionary compensation award based upon its own assessment of the circumstances. It was reasonable for it to have repeated its reasons for providing a lower compensation offer to the resident in its final complaint response. This decision was one the landlord was entitled to make.
25. The resident had been without a consistent heating and hot water supply for 17 days prior to the landlord’s boiler repair on 16 May 2023. The landlord reviewed its compensation offer in its final response and increased it to £408 in recognition of further communication and repair handling failings it recognised. This was reasonable to put right the likely time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience it may have caused the resident. The landlord’s level of compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where, like here, there were service failings that the landlord recognised had adversely affected the resident.
26. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the repair handling failings satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
27. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its practices, processes, and procedures following our special investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. This order addressed the landlord’s handling of repairs, knowledge and information, complaints, and compensation. The landlord provided evidence in January 2024 that showed compliance with our previous order. Therefore, we have not made any orders as part of this case which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any other issues arising from this later case that require further action.

The complaint

28. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
    1. Did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 2 May 2023 until 17 May 2023 which was 1-working-day later than its 10-working-day complaint policy response timescale.
    2. Did not fully address the resident’s stage 1 complaint such as by explaining why it had been unable to repair the boiler repair for 17 days. Additionally it did not address the resident’s complaint about its level of communication. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’) in use at the time (April 2022). This says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
    3. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint in line with paragraph 5.8 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
    4. Incorrectly addressed its stage 2 acknowledgement letter of 2 October 2023 to a different person.
    5. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 18 May 2023, until 6 October 2023. This was 80 working-days later than its 20-working-day complaint policy response timescale.
    6. Did not fully address the resident’s stage 2 complaint such as by addressing his reference to heating and hot water faults as hazards, and the landlord’s repair response timescales. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.16 of the Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
    7. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 2 complaint in line with paragraph 5.16 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
29. The landlord reviewed its complaint handling in its final complaint response. It recognised that it should have handled its communication more effectively and sooner. It also recognised that its poor complaint handling was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident and it offered him £100 as compensation.
30. The landlord’s compensation procedure says that it may offer compensation if it did not respond to or process a complaint within agreed response times and did not comply with the Code. It was therefore right for it to offer an award of compensation in recognition of the likely impact this had on the resident. However, its award was low and not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests a range of awards where, like here, we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionally addressed.
31. We have ordered the landlord to provide a further compensation award of £75, totalling £175, below in keeping with our remedies guidance for the detriment that its complaint handling failings may have caused to the resident.
32. The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman that shows its compliance with our order for it to carry out a review of its practices, processes, and procedures. This followed our special investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and included its complaints handling. We have however ordered it to write to the resident to apologise for its poor complaint handling. We have also recommended it to review the learning from this case and consider whether there are any other issues arising from it that require further action.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of heating and hot water repairs in the property.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of the resident’s complaint, explaining what measure it has put in place to address the failings this report has found.
    2. Pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered in the stage 2 response for its delayed stage 2 complaint response and its poor communication if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay the resident another £75 compensation for the likely time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience its complaint handling failures may have caused to the resident.
36. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against any money that the resident may owe it.

Recommendations

37. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £408 compensation it offered the resident in its stage 2 response for its repairs handling failures if it has not already. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset this against any money that he may owe the landlord.
38. The landlord is recommended to consider whether there are any other issues arising from this case that require further action in respect of the learning it identified in response to our special investigation under Paragraph 49 of the Scheme.