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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202323179)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323179

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 May 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 requests for it to:
    1. replace the front and back doors.
    2. upgrade the heating system.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. He has a non-verbal autistic child.
  2. The resident completed a mutual exchange for the property and the tenancy began in mid-2023. In July 2023 he made requests to the landlord to replace the front and back doors at the property and to upgrade the heating system. He provided a letter from an occupational therapist (the OT). It declined to complete the works stating the current doors and heating system in place were suitable.
  3. The resident made a complaint regarding its handling of the doors on 31 July 2023, he made a further complaint the next day regarding his doors and the heating system and a further complaint on 2 August 2023 about the heating system.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2023. It said it needed to inspect the front and back doors and decide on what actions it might need to take. Regarding the heating system, it said its contractors reported the radiators in the property conformed with building regulations and it would not change them, as they were adequate for the property. It issued a further response on 23 August 2023 saying the doors did not need replacing but it would conduct some repair works regarding draughts and decoration. It repeated that the radiators did not need changing. It did not uphold the complaint.
  5. The resident escalated his complaints on 23 August 2023 stating he was upset and unhappy with the outcome.
  6. The landlord installed a new combi boiler system on 6 September 2023 and replaced radiators at the property.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 9 October 2023. It said it would conduct works to add additional locks to the doors. Its surveyor deemed the doors adequate. It said it would not be replacing the doors. It confirmed it had upgraded the heating system. It found no failure in its actions and upheld the decision it had made in its stage 1 complaint response.
  8. The resident continued to request the landlord replace the doors and contacted his MP regarding the matter. It agreed to install new UPVC doors in January 2024 and completed the works in May 2024.
  9. In bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has said the landlord took too long to complete the installation of the doors and heating system and that it should compensate him for those delays.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that have completed the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. This is in line with paragraph 42.a pf the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints ‘which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to exhausting a members’ complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. This investigation has therefore focussed on events up to the landlord’s final complaint response of 9 October 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for it to replace the front and back doors

  1. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property including the external doors and all fixtures and fittings for heating. This reflects its obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. On 24 July 2023 the landlord received a letter from the OT asking it to review aspects of the property – the front and rear doors and radiators to improve the safety of the property for the resident’s son.
  3. When the landlord did not respond promptly to that letter, the resident raised a complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it would inspect the front and back doors and make a decision on replacing them. That was an appropriate response to the OT’s letter. It was also a timely response as it was within 7 working days of its receipt of that letter. We cannot say with any certainty if the landlord would have responded as promptly without the complaint from the resident.
  4. Following an inspection on 10 August 2023, the landlord’s surveyor noted a defect to the front door (a crack in the wood). It noted the crack was only visible to the outside of the door. It noted the rear door had no structural defects and both doors needed new draught excluders and repainting. The landlord undertook this work at the end of the following month.
  5. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord contacted the OT. It said its understanding was their report was a suggestion rather than a mandatory requirement and asked them to confirm. It was appropriate for the landlord to make this enquiry however, given its uncertainty about what was being asked of it, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so sooner. It is not clear why it took until this time to do so as it had been in receipt of the OT’s letter for some 35 working days by that time. It would have been reasonable to have sought that information from the OT sooner.
  6. The OT replied to the landlord the same day saying it did not make mandatory requests to housing associations. They explained their role was to highlight a need outside their remit. The evidence suggests that the landlord had spoken to the OT earlier that month and that she was content with its suggestion to install a bolt at the top of the door and that the doors would not need replacing. While the landlord’s delay in contacting the OT was a failing, given that there was no change to the landlord’s decision following this contact there was no detriment to the resident by this delay.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord upheld its decision not to replace the doors. It referred to its suggestion to have a bolt fitted at a height where his child was unable to reach it to open the door. It said it understood his concerns regarding the doors; however, its surveyor had provided a professional opinion and deemed the doors adequate. It added the OT was happy with its decision not to change the doors due to it solely being a recommendation. It explained the surveyor had confirmed it had spoken with a manager before making the final decision. The landlord added that, if the resident believed the doors were a vital adaptation, it may be able to action that under major adaptations and gave him advice about what he would need to do next. It upheld the stage 1 decision. It offered the resident £50 for its delay in escalating the complaint, which was appropriate.
  8. Following the stage 2 complaint response the landlord installed a bolt to the front door on 11 October 2023. The landlord subsequently replaced the front and rear doors in May 2024.
  9. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonable in response to the resident’s request for new doors. The landlord inspected, carried out repairs, and took action to make the doors more secure with the installation of a bolt. It also engaged with the OT about the action it was taking and sought her approval on that.

The landlords handling of the resident’s requests for it to upgrade the heating system

  1. In the OT’s letter of 24 July 2023, the OT said that to improve the resident’s child’s safety at home, the landlord should also review replacing the radiators as the single radiators throughout the property offered little warmth during winter months.
  2. The next day the landlord agreed to conduct a heat loss survey. That was an appropriate response to the OT’s request. We have not seen the outcome of that survey.
  3. Following that survey, the landlord decided not to upgrade the heating system in the property and repeated that decision in its stage 1 complaint response of early August 2023. It noted that it would not change the radiators as they were adequate for the property. It found no fault in its handling of the matter.
  4. However later that month, following further investigation and discussions with the resident, the landlord decided to upgrade the radiators as well as converting the heating system to a combination boiler. Its records are not clear on why it reached that decision. The landlord’s records indicate this work took place in early September 2023.
  5. The landlord took reasonable action here. While the resident was not happy with its decision not to upgrade the heating system it quickly reversed that decision. Overall it took 32 working days from receipt of the OT’s letter to install new radiators and upgrade the boiler. This was a reasonable amount of time for what is generally considered to be major works.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for it to:
    1. replace the front and back doors.
    2. upgrade the heating system.