From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202322819)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322819

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 April 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 the resident’s request for it to install a larger bath in the bathroom.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2–bedroom property that the landlord let to her under an assured tenancy agreement in 2010.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 October 2022 about repairs which included a leak from the bathroom. She said:
    1. The landlord had fixed a bathroom leak and said the kitchen ceiling needed to dry out before it could repair it, but it had not completed this repair.
    2. Another leak happened and a plumber had removed the bath panel to repair it, but it had not completed this repair.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 19 October 2022 and it sent a stage 1 response to her on 4 November 2022 in which it said:
    1. It had completed a surveyor’s inspection. The surveyor would call the resident during the approaching week to confirm the next steps.
    2. Its service was not at the level it expected to provide. This had caused her distress and inconvenience, and it would provide a £280 goodwill payment.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 and 11 January 2023. She said it had installed a bath that she could not comfortably fit inside, there was no point in having it, and she wished to take this further. She escalated her complaint on 16 January 2023 by saying she was no nearer to getting a new bath than she had been a week previously.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 16 January 2023, and it sent a stage 2 response to her on 11 August 2023 in which it said:
    1. It had taken longer than it would have liked to provide its response, and it was sorry for the delay.
    2. It had previously said that it was unable to supply a larger bath as it was only able to fit standard size items.
    3. It had previously suggested contacting an occupational therapist (OT) to obtain a written report. It said to date it had not received this to confirm that she needed adaptations.
    4. The resident had stopped the bathroom repairs, and she had submitted a disrepair case. Its surveyor would deal directly with her and her solicitor.
    5. It would offered £90 compensation for its complaint handling delays.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said that to put the matter right, the landlord should install a larger bath and increase its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident did not escalate her complaint about the repairs in the bathroom and progressed matters with her solicitor separately in any event.  This investigation has focussed on the issues surrounding the bath, as that is the matter the resident referred to us.

The resident’s request for a larger bath

  1. The resident bought the property under the Right to Buy in 1998. She installed a larger bath prior to selling the property back to the landlord on an undisclosed date. The resident signed an assured tenancy agreement in 2010, and her larger bath remained present in the property at that time. By selling the property to the landlord, the landlord bought the property with the larger bath from the resident. The resident had the benefit of the larger bath from the start of her tenancy in 2010.
  2. The landlord responded to various repairs in the property on undisclosed dates prior to 2021. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 October 2022 that it had not completed some outstanding repairs which included the bath panel. To put things right the landlord inspected the property on 20 October 2022. The landlord reinspected the bathroom on 24 November 2022 during which it found a series of bathroom repairs, including a replacement bath panel.
  3. The landlord removed the larger bath and replaced it with a smaller standard sized bath on 10 January 2023. The resident told the landlord on the same day that the new bath was not big enough for her. The resident explained that the landlord had removed the bath without explaining it would replace it with a smaller bath. Further, that it had not given her notice that it would not replace the bath on a like-for-like basis.
  4. The landlord apologised to the resident, and it said that it had installed a standard sized bath as it was only able to fit standard sized items. Additionally it said that it could consider installing a larger bath in response to an OT assessment. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will undertake repairs it is responsible for that have become defective and present health and safety concerns, a risk of harm, damage to the home, or are not in a functioning condition. The landlord’s repairs policy does not refer to a requirement to install standard sized installations.
  5. In most cases, landlords are entitled to rely on the expertise of its qualified contractors when deciding the best course of action. It is reasonable for landlords to work to accepted industry standards in ordinary circumstances. This helps landlords complete repairs more efficiently and cost effectively.
  6. Where a landlord elects to renew or upgrade facilities in a property, it should explain how it will do that and seek a resident’s consent where there is likely to be a change. It would have been right for the landlord to have explained the proposed changes before completing the repair and in order to have considered any reasons why the resident had installed a larger bath in the property.
  7. Whilst the landlord said the resident could seek an OT assessment, this was after it had changed the bath. Had the resident been in need of a larger bath as a reasonable adjustment then the landlord cannot have reasonably had due regard to its equality duties. In any event, there is no evidence to confirm if, or when, the landlord provided the resident with advice to seek an OT assessment prior to sending its stage 2 response.
  8. The resident explained on 7 April 2025 that the landlord installed a larger bath in the property on an undisclosed date in 2023, after it had sent its final complaint response. The landlord has not provided reasons why it changed its position or why it could not have arrived at this decision sooner within the complaint procedure and learned from any outcomes.
  9. The landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but did not fully address the detriment to the resident for the likely impact of its failings. We have therefore ordered it to pay her an added £250 compensation in keeping with the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We have also ordered it to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings this investigation has found.

The resident’s complaint

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
    1. Did not issue its response to the resident’s complaint of 13 October 2022 until 4 November 2022. This was 6 working days later than the landlord’s complaint policy response target.
    2. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint in line with paragraph 5.8 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of this complaint. This says landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
    3. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 16 January 2023 until 11 August 2023. This was 125 working days later than its complaint policy response target.
    4. 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.
  2. The landlord offered the resident £90 compensation for its poor complaint handling. However, this amount was not proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failings.
  3. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an added award of £150 compensation (increase of £60). This is in line with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance. This is to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and failures in the complaint procedure. Additionally, we have ordered it to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the complaint.
  4. 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.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to install a larger bath in the bathroom.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. 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 request for a larger bath and for its complaint handling failings.
    2. Pay the resident an added £400 in compensation made up as follows:
      1. £250 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a larger bath may have caused to her.
      2. £150 for time and trouble that the landlord’s complaint handling failures may have caused to the resident. This is made up of the £90 offered at stage 2 of its complaint procedure and a further £60 ordered by this Service.

The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset this against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

  1. Provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to review its repairs policy and consider whether to incorporate some advice about its preference to provide standard-sized fittings, fixtures, and installations.