London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202327380)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327380

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 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:

1. The landlord’s handling of repair issues with a flood detection device.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident has been leaseholder of a shared ownership flat since 25 March 2022. The landlord is a housing association. The flat was part of a new build development.

3.             The resident’s flat came with a flood detection device installed. This device can detect, and notify the resident, if there is a water leak in the property. It can also turn off the water supply when necessary. On 16 May 2022, the resident notified the landlord the device did not appear to be working correctly. The landlord raised a repair with the building developer in June 2022.

4.             On 18 August 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said the issue with the device had not been resolved and the developer had missed several repair appointments.

5.             The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 September 22. It acknowledged the developer had missed two appointments in July 2022. It said it had chased them for an update. The developer told the landlord it was waiting on the device manufacturer to fix the fault before installing a replacement. The developer said it would contact the resident to organise works as soon as possible. The landlord apologised and offered the resident a total of £50 compensation.

6.             The resident escalated his complaint on 14 September 2022. He said the compensation offered did not reflect the inconvenience caused. He also said he was unhappy the device had still not been fixed and the landlord’s communication on the issue had been poor. He wanted the landlord to arrange an appointment to get the device fixed and for it to reassess the level of compensation offered.

7.             In October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and said the compensation it offered was correct. It said it had chased the developer for an update and the developer was awaiting new devices from the manufacturer. The developer fitted a replacement device in the resident’s flat on 14 December 2022. The landlord closed his complaint on 22 December 2022 but offered the resident a revised compensation amount totalling £350 at the same time. It did not provide a formal response to his escalated complaint, however.

8.             The resident queried why the landlord had closed his complaint. On 25 January 2023 he emailed it asking for it to confirm what stage his complaint was at as it had never clarified this. He also asked the landlord to provide a breakdown of the new offer compensation offer it had made.

9.             Following contact with the resident, the Service emailed the landlord on 9 November 2023 asking it to respond to his stage 2 escalation request.

10.        The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 November 2023. It agreed there had been failings in both its handling of the device repair and the resident’s complaint. It apologised and offered a revised compensation amount totalling of £460 compensation.

11.        The resident remained unhappy and escalated his complaint to the Service. He said the compensation offered was too low and did not reflect the impact the issue had. He wanted the landlord to review the compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

12.        The landlord’s repairs policy says defects in new build properties are the responsibility of the building developer to rectify. It says it will liaise with the developer to arrange these repairs.

13.        The landlord’s compensation policy says there is a “Defects Liability Period” for leaseholders who purchase a new build property. Its website states this liability period runs between 12 to 24 months depending on the leaseholder’s contract. During this period, it says it will ensure any qualifying defects reported to it are repaired. It says if these repairs are not completed in a reasonable time it will offer discretionary compensation for any failures in service, but not for the defect itself.

14.        In general, repair issues identified as defects in a new build property are the developer’s responsibility to fix during the defect liability period. The landlord’s obligations are to liaise with the developer on any defects brought to its attention, and help the resident get the matter resolved as much as it reasonably can. The actual resolution at this stage, however, is usually not within the landlord’s control.

15.        The evidence shows that between May and December 2022 the landlord chased the developer for an update by email 4 times. It also shows the developer was, at times, in direct contact with the resident to provide updates and book appointments. The landlord liaised with the developer to get the repair completed and its actions were in line with the obligations set out in its compensation policy.

16.        In its final response the landlord acknowledged there had been failings in its handling of the repair. It said the developer had missed two repair appointments in July 2022. It also recognised the resident had chased it for updates several times and the issue had caused him distress and inconvenience. It apologised for these failings and offered compensation based on its findings. Its approach was appropriate and in line with both its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

17.        In his complaint to the Service the resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation. In its final response in November 2023 it offered him a total of £160 compensation for failings relating to the repair. However, in December 2022 it had offered him £350. It is not apparent why the amount was reduced, given that the landlord’s acknowledgment of its failings had not changed. £350 was an appropriate amount in the circumstances of the landlord’s failings when considered against the recommendations in its compensation policy. The landlord did not explain the reduction. The final compensation offered in November 2023 was therefore not reasonable, and left the complaint unresolved.

18.        The resident asked the landlord to explain in 2022 how it had calculated the compensation it offered him. It did not do so, and should have as part of providing a clear and robust complaint response. Nonetheless, there is no apparent or specific impact from its omission, and this issue is not significant enough on its own to be considered a service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

19.        The landlord’s complaints policy says following a resident requesting a stage 2 complaint escalation it will contact them to discuss their request. It says it will aim to issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the resident’s request but can extend this by a further 10 working days if required and providing the resident is informed.

20.        The resident escalated his complaint in an email to the landlord on 14 September 2022. His email clearly said he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, the reasons why and what he wanted as an outcome at stage 2. He then chased the landlord, via email, for a response three times, twice in October 2022 and once in January 2023. Despite this the landlord then took 299 working days to provide a formal stage 2 response on 17 November 2023. Its response was sent after the Service had chased it, , on 10 November 2023. This was a failure as its response time did not comply with its complaint policy or the Code and was not reasonable.

21.        The landlord appropriately acknowledged its poor complaint handling in its stage 2 response. It apologised and offered the resident £300 compensation. It was more than the £100 maximum its compensation policy it should offer for poor complaint handling. Along with the landlord’s acknowledgements and apologies, this was an appropriate remedy which suitably resolved its failings.

Determination

22.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repair issues with a flood detection device.

23.        In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which resolved its poor complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

24.        Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must:

1. Pay the resident the £350 compensation it had offered at Stage 1 for the failures it identified with its handling of repair issues. If it has already paid the resident the £160 if went on to offer at stage 2, it must pay the difference of £190.
2. Pay an additional £100 for the failings identified in this report.

Recommendations

25.        If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the £300 compensation it offered for poor complaint handling at stage 2 to the resident.