London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202331777)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331777

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about its caretaking and ground maintenance services.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident and her partner are joint shared owners of a leasehold share of a flat that they bought in 2019. The landlord, a housing association, owns the freehold of the building. The resident’s block of flats is within a scheme that has communal gardens and an underground car park. The resident pays a monthly service charge, including charges for caretaking and the upkeep of communal areas.
The resident raised concerns to the landlord about its maintenance of communal gardens and the cleanliness of communal areas in 2022 and 2023. The landlord responded to her concerns and took some internal actions. It completed monthly estate inspections. On 21 July 2023 the landlord acknowledged to the resident that it had failed to maintain standards and the need for improvements. It promised changes in the next few weeks. The resident contacted the landlord at the end of July 2023 and in August 2023 to raise her ongoing concerns about the standard of communal areas.
On 22 August 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said that it had failed to provide adequate caretaking services. She referred the landlord to her previous raised concerns that she considered it had not resolved or responded to appropriately.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident on 5 September 2023. It apologised for delay responding to her concerns raised in June 2023. It offered her £30 for her time and effort chasing it. It said that the resident was receiving the services required. It explained about the caretaker’s schedule and duties and its completion of monthly inspections to identify issues. It said that any issues were referred for immediate action. It found that there were no grounds to offer compensation for the services it provided.
The resident requested on 11 September 2023 that the landlord escalate her complaint to the next stage of its process. She detailed concerns about the cleanliness of common internal and external areas and maintenance of the gardens and vegetation. She said that the landlord had failed to engage with and address her complaint. She referred it to her previous reports and their July 2023 contact. She requested compensation that reflected her experience and financial loss. She said that it failed to treat her prior concerns as complaints.
On 11 October 2023 the landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It:
1. Acknowledged further failings in its communications and offered an additional £10 compensation for her time and effort chasing its contact.
2. Repeated an explanation of the caretaking schedule and estate inspections.
3. Offered for its neighbourhood team and caretaking team lead to meet with her to discuss her concerns and for her to accompany an estate inspection.
4. Required an understanding from her of what services had not been received in order to investigate her concerns. It said that there were no grounds for it to provide compensation.
5. Said that she had raised some ‘new’ issues that were not part of her complaint, including the history of her concerns.
6. Outlined that it would have logged reports as ‘queries’ unless the resident had confirmed she was making a formal complaint.
The resident refused the landlord’s increased compensation of £40. She requested confirmation that its letter of 11 October 2023 was its final response to enable her referral for an investigation by this Service. The landlord replied that she could approach the Ombudsman at any point and on 9 November 2023 told her it would review her concerns at stage 2 of its complaint process.
On 11 January 2024 the landlord issued a further stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It repeated its October 2023 response for many points of her complaint. It said it had addressed issues that she had previously raised and explained the steps it had and would be taking to improve maintenance of communal areas. The landlord repeated the offer of a meeting. It apologised that it had not logged her prior concerns as complaints, however explained it would not do so unless a formal complaint was specified. It outlined details of when it had cleaned windows. It apologised for poor communication. It found no evidenced service failure, however accepted that its complaint handling had taken place over 4 months causing the resident to wait for answers. It offered compensation for this delay and her associated distress, time and effort totalling £340.
The resident referred her complaint for investigation by this Service. Her desired outcomes were increased compensation and transparency.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 11 January 2024. Under the terms of the Scheme we are unable to investigate complaints that have not exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation does not therefore consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns or any events or contact after this date.
Part of the resident’s complaint was about her payment of a charge for services in communal areas that she said were not delivered. While we have considered certain elements of this complaint, for example the landlord’s service delivery, we did not assess the reasonableness of questions of level or reasonableness of service charges are matters for the First Tier Tribunal.
This Service does not investigate matters that fall within the remit of another regulator or body. One element of the resident’s complaint was about information requested from the landlord that it refused to disclose. The Information Commissioner’s Office considers concerns about information rights.
The resident raised dissatisfaction to this Service about the landlord’s handling of a parking issue and repairs. These matters were not part of the complaint referred to this Service and are outside of the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its caretaking and ground maintenance services

This Service requested from the landlord its records relevant to the resident’s complaint. The limited nature of its records made it difficult to assess what cleaning or maintenance it completed over the relevant period. There was no retained consistent record showing what, if any, cleaning and maintenance it completed in the building or external common areas. While the landlord supplied caretaker logs, these were specified not to be a log of these duties. Although there was passing reference to some cleaning and maintenance, these logs were insufficient as a compete record. The landlord and resident referred to a communal noticeboard where completed cleaning and the caretaking scheme was said to have been noted. However, these key documents were not supplied by the landlord. Noting their importance to recording compliance with service standards, it is of concern that the landlord did not retain these as key documents.
We also noted within the landlord’s records that it said it would take certain actions or promised steps to check on the standards of communal areas. For example, it noted that it would ensure before and after photographs and inspection visits were received and checked by supervisors. There was no associated record of these control measures to assess their existence, outcomes or efficacy. Not a single photograph of the condition of the premises appears to have been retained. The landlord’s failure to keep and retain reasonable records of its caretaking and grounds maintenance services was a failure of appropriate record keeping practice.
In line with the terms of the lease agreement between the landlord and the resident and her partner, it was required to use ‘reasonable endeavours’ to provide services that included:
1. Cleaning of common areas including the car park.
2. Maintenance of the landscaped and grassed common areas, including the scheme shared amenity space
3. Cleaning of windows.
At the resident’s scheme these services were provided by a caretaker, whose services were subject to payment of service charge. The landlord had an estate management policy that said it would ensure that communal grounds were maintained to a “good standard”. The policy said that it considered a “good standard” to mean that grass was cut regularly, flower and shrub beds neat and tidy, weed treatment applied, winter debris and litter picked.
The landlord’s records show a significant history of the resident reporting concerns to it about how it maintained and cleaned communal areas. She raised concerns from February 2022, repeated in June 2022, July 2022, November 2022, multiple occasions in June 2023, and further in July and August 2023. She said that it was failing to adequately clean internal communal areas and the underground car park, or maintain the external gardens.
During this time, the landlord recorded its own concerns about the standard of its cleanliness and maintenance of internal and external communal areas at the scheme. These mirrored the areas of concern raised by the resident. In its monthly estate inspections in September, October, November and December 2022, it identified action was needed to bring the floors, landings, stairways, and handrails to standard. For example, in December 2022 it commented on internal cobwebs and untidiness of the car park. It noted in March 2023 at its monthly inspection that cleaning by its caretaking service was not to standard and in May 2023 recorded that areas required attention. In October 2022 to January 2023, March to May 2023 and June to August 2023 it identified at its monthly inspections that work was outstanding to bring the external gardens to standard.
The landlord’s correspondence to the resident on 21 July 2023 acknowledged its failure to maintain attention to detail and that areas of improvements were needed to the provision of its caretaking services. This was a clear admission that it had failed to provide services in line with the required standards, consistent with its own records of monthly inspections. The landlord failed to provide a cleaning and grounds maintenance service that met the standards required by the lease and its estate management policy.
In response to the resident’s concerns and its monthly inspection findings, the landlord carried out additional inspections and noted further measures it would put into place to monitor the condition of communal areas. For example, increased supervision checking. However, not all of its measures were identified in a timely manner and occurred after a reasonable period of time passed. There is also no evidence that some of the assurance measures were implemented consistently. For example, there is no record of any fortnightly reviews noted as required in May 2023, or the photographs it said it would take and check as ongoing evidence of compliant standards.
This Service issued a spotlight report in 2020 that reflected on common failings concerning leasehold shared ownership and new build properties. We made recommendations, including that in cases of repeated failings in service landlords should have systems in place to bring this to their attention and consider different approaches. Although the landlord was aware of regular issues with the standard of its caretaking services, it failed to show a consistent and appropriate approach to effectively monitoring and tackling the problem. This affected its delivery of standards.
While the landlord repeatedly noted at consecutive monthly inspections that its communal areas fell below standards, its scoring and inspection outcomes did not reflect its findings. It consistently marked internal and external areas as meeting “gold standard” even where it noted issues. We are concerned that failing to accurately report a reflective outcome may have affected the landlord’s internal monitoring and tracking of a pattern of issues that emerged at the site. This may have impacted oversight and support to find a new approach to tackling the issues.
The landlord was at times slow to respond to the resident. In June 2023, the resident contacted it on 3 separate occasions chasing contact to explore her concerns. It did not reply until 21 July 2023, although it offered an apology for its delay. She contacted the landlord in response on 31 July 2023. It failed to respond. She called and visited its offices on 11 August 2023, seeking its engagement with her contact. The landlord noted that day the repetition of her reports. The resident raised her complaint 11 days later, after the landlord failed to respond. The landlord delayed unreasonably in its communications to her.
The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged its delayed communication. Each of its replies offered an apology for this failing. It offered £40 associated compensation and noted the need for learning to be taken forward. In respect of this particular failing, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It also engaged reasonably with the resident’s complaint about window cleaning, answering her concerns by offering details of dates it had cleaned the windows.
However, the landlord’s complaint responses failed to show an appropriate level of investigation into the resident’s specific concerns and its past handling of the caretaking and grounds maintenance. Its own records showed that the maintenance and cleaning of communal areas were repeat issues, yet it focused largely on how it was meant to be conducting its services, rather than whether there had been failings in their adequacy. It repeatedly found that it was not responsible for service failing, except for its communications and complaint handling. It failed over 3 separate responses to acknowledge failings evident from its records. This added considerably to the resident’s distress who felt that her experience was being denied.
Both of the landlord’s stage 2 responses suggest that the landlord required her to add more detail to her concerns for it to further investigate. The resident’s reports were repeatedly clear that cleaning was not completed at all or to standard in communal areas. She told the landlord that the gardens and grounds were not being adequately maintained. It is unclear why the landlord placed further burden on the resident to repeat further herself. It had sufficient details on its records to investigate her complaint.
The resident’s complaint included her concern that she had paid for services that had not been received or adequately performed. During the period of the landlord’s complaint investigation, it made internal enquiries into the resident’s charges and noted that it had incorrectly charged her for grounds maintenance and cleaning. It discovered that it should only have charged her for its caretaking service that included grounds maintenance and cleaning services. Although the landlord noted this, there was no reflection of this within its response to the resident. This was of key relevance to her complaint about service charges. This was a serious failure to offer transparency and admit a mistake to the resident. We are concerned that it is unclear from the landlord’s records and response to this Service whether it subsequently reconciled the payments made.
The resident experienced detriment due to the landlord’s failings. Areas that she used regularly to access her home were found to be unclean. Outside amenity areas were left unsightly and she was unable to enjoy these. The resident lives with physical and mental health issues. She described that having to repeatedly raise the communal area issues added to her personal challenges and caused her particular distress. She also expressed severe disappointment and distrust in the landlord due to how it handled her concerns.
The landlord did not acknowledge the extent of its failings to the resident or offer appropriate redress for the particular detriment caused to the resident. It is responsible for maladministration in its handling of her concerns about the standard of its caretaking and ground maintenance services.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise for its failings and to pay compensation to the resident of £400. This sum is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there were failures that adversely affected the resident which the landlord failed to acknowledge or put right.
The resident reports that there remain ongoing issues with the standard of cleaning and maintenance of communal areas. Considering the above noted concerns about the quality assurance and monitoring systems, we have ordered the landlord to complete a case review to consider available learning and what, if any, measures are required to support the ongoing provision of services.
In view of the landlord’s admission of incorrect charges, we have also ordered it to evidence that that it has already refunded the resident or if not, confirm that it will do so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy defined a complaint in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action…’
The resident made multiple reports to the landlord across 2022 and 2023 that raised concern about its handling of communal area cleaning and maintenance. The content of her reports met both the landlord’s and Code definition of a complaint for example, her reports in February, June, and November 2022. The landlord failed to treat these expressions of dissatisfaction in line with its policy or the Code. It did not log complaints and supplied a brief response that was considered by 1 of the services subject of her complaint. This was repeated in June 2023, even though the resident expressed her dissatisfaction on multiple occasions across the month.
The landlord’s failure to treat her concerns as complaints repeatedly prevented opportunities for identification or resolution of the issues that the landlord’s records confirmed as existing. The resident incurred time and trouble over a significant period repeatedly raising complaints. The landlord’s complaint response acknowledged having failed to log her earlier concerns as complaints and apologised, however did not reflect appropriate learning. In both of its stage 2 responses, it explained that it would not log such concerns as complaints, but as “queries”, unless she had specifically said she was making a formal complaint. This showed a lack of understanding by separate complaint handlers of how it was required to identify and treat a complaint in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord also failed to provide appropriately clear advice about how the resident could escalate her complaint in line with Code requirements, both in its stage 1 reply and when responding to her query. Its stage 1 response suggested that she must first explore her concerns with the complaint handler before asking to escalate her complaint to stage 2. After providing a stage 2 response, the landlord failed to advise her when asked that further escalation was by way of her referral to this Service. While it said that she could contact the Ombudsman at any time, it was not clear that she had reached the end of its complaint process. It instead supplied her with a second stage 2 response, significantly delaying her access to independent review of her complaint by this Service.
The reasoning for the landlord issuing 2 stage 2 responses is unclear. It did not explain this to the resident. By reviewing her complaint 3 times rather than in line with its 2 stage process, it caused her unreasonable delay awaiting a final response. It also issued its final stage 2 outside of the 20 working days required by its policy, adding to its overall delay. This added to the distress experienced by the resident who, as noted above, had already experienced lengthy difficulty having her concerns reviewed.
The landlord’s stage 1 and first stage 2 complaint investigation and response were conducted by the same complaint handler. The Code required a different complaint handler at each stage. The landlord’s breach of this obligation placed at risk its ability to have an open mind when re-reviewing the complaint at stage 2. It affected the resident’s confidence in it completing a fair and independent assessment of her concerns. The second stage 2 response was considered by a different person, however it did not address or explain this earlier complaint handling failing.
The landlord’s complaint response apologised for delay in its complaint handling and offered compensation specifically for the level of its delay and the associated impact to the resident of £340. This was a proportionate figure that reflected how its handling had caused her distress, time and trouble. However, its response did not acknowledge its other failings as considered above, their extent or impact on the resident. It demonstrated a repeat lack of understanding or learning regarding appropriate complaint handling at multiple stages in its process. Its complaint handling failures caused the resident distress and significant time and trouble. She described to this Service distress from feeling confused at how her concerns were being handled by the landlord and losing trust and confidence in the relationship.
The landlord is therefore responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It is ordered to pay compensation to her of £150. This is in addition to the £340 previous offered for its delay, if not already paid. This sum is within the range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance when a landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation

Special investigation

The Ombudsman published a report in July 2023 about the landlord following a special wider investigation. It found systemic failings that were impacting its residents. These included poor communication with its residents, issues with complaint handling and inadequate record keeping. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes and recommended improvements. Some of the failings identified by this complaint mirror those identified by the special investigation and were subject to the improvement work ordered. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, we have not made any similar orders

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its caretaking and ground maintenance services.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a written apology to the resident from a senior member of its staff for the failings identified in this report and their impact on the resident.
2. Pay the resident the £340 compensation it previously offered if this has not already been paid.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £550. This is comprised of:
  1. £400 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she may have incurred from its handling of her concerns its caretaking and ground maintenance services
  2. £150 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she may have incurred from its handling of her complaint.

This is to be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.

Provide evidence that it has refunded the resident for the service charge discrepancy that it noted in its internal correspondence of 4 June 2024 or confirm that it will do so within 14 days.

Within 12 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its identified failings and determine what action it should take to prevent reoccurrence. This must include but not be limited to a review of:
1. The adequacy of the current quality assurance in place to monitor the standard of cleaning and maintenance in communal areas.
2. How it scores outcomes and records issues noted at estate inspection visits.

The review should be conducted by a senior manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. A copy of the above ordered review should be provided to the Ombudsman.