London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202412073)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412073

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 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:
   1. the resident’s concerns that cleaning and management services were not being provided.
   2. the resident’s request for service charge information.
   3. the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds a shared ownership lease with the landlord, which is a housing association. The landlord is the freeholder of the property. The property is a first floor flat within a block of flats. The lease is dated 30 June 2009. The resident lives alone and has not reported any vulnerabilities.
3. The resident called the landlord on 11 April 2024. He said he was unhappy as a lot of the services charges he was paying for were not being carried out. He said he asked the landlord for the details of the person managing the block but it was unable to tell him.
4. On 15 April 2024, the resident raised a complaint. He said:
   1. management and communal cleaning services were not provided. He wanted a refund for the months they were not.
   2. no-one had inspected the block since March 2023. He said he had asked the landlord who was managing the block and how to contact them.
   3. communal cleaning services had not been provided for months. He asked who cleaned the block, and why they had not been attending.
   4. he questioned whether a mobile caretaker or pest control attended.
   5. he questioned whether the CCTV was working and why it was needed.
   6. it often took multiple visits for repairs to be completed.
   7. he wanted to know why there were no resident meetings.
5. On 12 July 2024, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It:
   1. acknowledged the delay in responding and lack of communication.
   2. said there was a delay in cleaning due to a change in contractors and an issue with sockets in the communal area.
   3. said it had told the contractor to clean manually, and it would check the sockets by the end of the month, when cleaning should resume.
   4. confirmed no–one had overseen the cleaning when the neighbourhood housing lead (NHL) was absent. It said it would ensure services were monitored in staff absence.
   5. acknowledged service failure in the management and servicing of communal areas and upheld the complaint.
   6. offered £20 for a late response and £40 for distress and inconvenience.
6. On 14 July, the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He:
   1. said he was unhappy with the delay in its response.
   2. said he was unhappy the landlord had not addressed his request for a refund of cleaning and management fee service charges.
   3. said there was still no communal cleaning, and there had not been since July 2023. He said cleaners attended from April 2024 but did not clean as the sockets did not work.
   4. asked why the socket repairs were taking so long and why there was no interim cleaning.
   5. said an NHL had not attended since March 2023 and there were no updates on the communal notice board.
   6. asked for resident meetings to be arranged.
   7. queried what various service charges including pest control, CCTV, and mobile caretaker were for.
7. On 20 September 2024, the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said:
   1. vacuuming was not done as sockets in communal areas were not working. It said this has been repaired and cleaning services had restarted.
   2. the previous NHL had left its employment, and it was recruiting a replacement. It would confirm once they had been recruited.
   3. it offered a conversation with its service charges team and provided their email address.
   4. it reoffered the compensation it had offered at stage 1.
8. In referring the complaint to this Service on 20 September 2024, the resident said the landlord had not responded to all his queries and requests. He said he had previously tried to contact the landlord’s service charges team and was told to contact the NHL. However, he said there was no NHL and he was unhappy that there was still no oversight of services.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which relate to the level of rent or service charge or the amount of a service charge increase. These issues may be within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal. The resident may wish to seek independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service in relation to any queries about the level or amount of service charges. This investigation will consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s queries about his service charges and the information it provided up to its stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2024.
10. The resident initially brought his complaint to the landlord as a group complaint. However, the landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that any scheme wide responses or refunds would be assessed separately if necessary. We have therefore dealt with this as an individual complaint.

Concerns that cleaning and management services were not being provided

11. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) says that service charges are only payable if reasonably incurred and of a reasonable standard. The lease says the landlord is to maintain, and keep the common parts adequately cleaned.
12. The landlord’s estate management policy says it will:
    1. regularly check communal areas and ensure they are kept clean.
    2. review the work and performance of contractors.
    3. report communal issues in a timely manner.
    4. make details of cleaning schedules and estate inspections available.
    5. provide contact details and information about estates on noticeboards.
13. Our guidance on service charges, which is available on our website says it is best practice for landlords to:
    1. maintain records such as notes or photographs to evidence service standards.
    2. evidence that the standard of service was satisfactory if residents raise concerns about this.
14. The landlord said it did not have a system in place to log the cleaning contractor’s attendance and evidence of cleaning between March 2023 and March 2024, which was unreasonable. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence for us to able to be able to assess whether cleaning took place in this period or whether it was satisfactory. This was not in line with its estate management policy or our guidance and has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation.
15. Cleaners attended the block every week from 19 April 2024. The resident disputed that cleaning took place and said the sockets did not function. Contractors signed a cleaning service attendance sheet every week between 10 May 2024 and around 7 July 2024, commenting that there was no power. Its records show a repair to the plug sockets was not raised and completed until 24 June 2024, which did not show reasonable oversight of cleaning services and was not in line with its estate management policy.
16. A further repair to the sockets was raised on 3 July 2024 and completed on 12 July 2024. The resident said there was still no communal cleaning on 14 July 2024. Despite cleaners attending weekly from 19 April 2024, the landlord has not provided evidence that the standard of communal cleaning was satisfactory which was unreasonable.
17. An NHL completed inspections every month between 19 May and 20 September 2023. This was noted on the communal notice board which was appropriate. The landlord has not provided evidence of inspections or how services were overseen between September 2023 and September 2024. This was not in line with its estate management policy or our guidance and has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation.
18. The landlord’s internal emails confirm the NHL was not working between February and April 2024. From September 2023, the notice board did not show up-to-date information about the NHL or their inspections. This was not in line with the landlord’s estate management policy or our guidance and does not indicate reasonable oversight of the estate services.
19. In its complaint responses, it was helpful for the landlord to explain why the problems with communal cleaning had occurred and confirm there had been no oversight of the cleaning.
20. The landlord’s service charges policy says only services provided can be charged for. The landlord’s compensation policy says:
    1. it will consider compensation if it fails to follow policy, procedure or guidelines which has a negative impact on the resident.
    2. if it fails to provide a service that customers have been charged for such as cleaning it may consider discretionary compensation.
    3. it will not normally refund a service charge.
    4. it will consider discretionary compensation to acknowledge distress, inconvenience, time and effort made by a resident to put things right.
    5. where applicable and reasonable, it will also refund management fees.
21. The resident requested a refund of communal cleaning and management fees at both stages of his complaint. The landlord did not respond to this request but offered £40 compensation for distress and inconvenience. The landlord acknowledged failure of service in the management and servicing of communal areas. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm when and to what extent the services were not provided and to consider whether it was appropriate to offer a refund or discretionary compensation for this in line with its compensation policy.
22. In summary, the landlord failed to:
    1. regularly check communal areas and ensure they were kept clean.
    2. report communal issues in a timely manner.
    3. maintain or provide records to evidence service standards.
    4. review contractor work and performance.
    5. make cleaning schedules and estate inspections available.
    6. provide contact details and information about estates on noticeboards.
    7. respond to the resident’s request for a refund of service charges.
    8. consider its compensation policy in its redress for failures of service in the management and servicing of communal areas.
23. The resident said that the communal areas were very dirty for extended periods and one-off cleaning only took place when he and other residents reported this to the landlord. He said the landlord could not provide information about who was overseeing the services, and he felt he was not being listened to.
24. The landlord said it had told cleaners to clean manually and agreed to ensure services were monitored in its stage 1 response. However, it provided no evidence it oversaw cleaning or of cleaning service standards. At stage 2, it said it would inform the resident once a new NHL had been recruited. However, it provided no evidence of communication about a new NHL, or details of who would oversee services in the meantime. This was a failure to put things right and learn from outcomes, in line with our dispute resolution principles.
25. The landlord offered £40 for distress and inconvenience, which was not proportionate to the failings identified. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s concerns that cleaning and management services were not being provided. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £120 for the distress and inconvenience caused, including the £40 already offered.
26. We have not made an order for the landlord to refund communal cleaning or management fee service charges as we do not have sufficient evidence to assess whether, or to what extent these services were carried out. However, we have ordered the landlord to respond to the resident’s request for a refund of these charges with reference to its compensation policy.
27. Since the complaint the landlord keeps records of cleaner attendance and photographs to oversee the level of service provided. This is appropriate and shows learning from outcomes. We have recommended that the landlord publicises up–to–date estate information including cleaning schedules, inspections, and relevant contacts available, in line with its estate management policy.

Request for service charge information

28. The lease says:
    1. service charges are estimated at the start of the account year and the resident will pay or receive the balance based on actual expenditure at the end of the account year.
    2. the resident must pay service charges including all reasonably incurred costs in connection with the repair, management, maintenance and provision of services for the block.
29. The landlord’s service charges policy says:
    1. it will clearly set out what service charges cover and the associated expenditure.
    2. informal consultation will take place with residents when neighbourhoods wish to introduce or remove a service.
30. Section 21 of the Act gives leaseholders the right to ask their landlord to supply a summary of the relevant costs, which make up their service charges for the last accounting period. Section 22 of the Act gives leaseholders the right to inspect any receipts or invoices which support the landlord’s service charge figures within 6 months of receiving the summary.
31. The landlord sent the resident estimated service charge statements every year which included the explanation of some services such as the management fee, which was appropriate. The landlord sent the resident final statements every year which gave a breakdown of estimated and actual service charge costs, in line with the lease. The statements included information about the resident’s rights under sections 21 and 22 of the Act. This was appropriate.
32. At both stages of his complaint, the resident questioned what mobile caretaker, pest control and CCTV charges were for, or whether they were provided. The landlord did not respond to these queries at stage 1 of his complaint, which was unreasonable. The landlord offered a conversation with its service charges team at stage 2 and provided their email address. The resident said he had tried contacting this team but had no response or they suggested contacting the NHL. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do the following within its complaints procedure:
    1. clarify the resident’s queries.
    2. provide an explanation of the service charges or consider whether to take the complaint as a request under section 21 or 22 of the Act.
33. At both stages of the complaint, the resident either asked why resident meetings no longer took place or asked the landlord to arrange them. The landlord did not respond which was unreasonable. It would have been helpful for the landlord to respond, with reference to its legal duties, policy and procedures.
34. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge information. This is due to the landlord’s failure to respond to multiple queries or put things right at either stage of his complaint, in line with our dispute resolution principles. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 for the distress and inconvenience this caused. We have ordered the landlord to write to the resident to confirm its position on organising tenant meetings and ask whether he still requires information about any service charges.

Complaint handling

35. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and says it will:
    1. issue a stage 1 decision within 10 working days of logging it.
    2. issue a stage 2 decision within 20 working days of the request.
    3. acknowledge complaints at stages 1 and 2 within 5 working days.
    4. at both stages explain in writing if it needs more time and write again within 10 working days. If it needs further time, it will try to agree this with the resident.
    5. investigate all elements of the complaint.
36. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation when it fails to respond to or process a complaint within the agreed time or does not comply with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
37. The landlord sent a stage 1 acknowledgement on 19 April 2024 in line with its complaint handling timescales. It confirmed that its response may be delayed. However, it did not attempt to agree an extension with the resident or keep him updated in line with its complaints policy. The resident contacted us as he had not received a response from the landlord. It issued its stage 1 response 58 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was an unreasonable delay and was not in line with its complaints policy.
38. After requesting to escalate his complaint, the resident contacted us as he had not received a response. We contacted the landlord on 16 September 2024 and asked it to issue a stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 17 September 2024. This was 46 working days after he made the request and was not in line with its complaint handling timescales.
39. The landlord issued a stage 2 response 49 working days after the resident’s escalation request, which was not in line with its complaint handling timescales. It failed to update the resident about the delays or attempt to agree an extension with him in line with its complaints policy.
40. The landlord failed to investigate or respond to multiple issues raised in the resident’s complaint, including queries about specific service charges, repairs taking multiple visits, and his requests for a refund of service charges and resident meetings. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
41. The landlord acknowledged and offered £20 for the delay in its stage 1 response. It acknowledged but did not consider additional redress for its delayed stage 2 response and did not acknowledge all its complaint handling failures. This is not in line with our dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right.
42. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling, in line with our remedies guidance. This includes the £20 previously offered.

Determination

43. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that cleaning and management services were not being provided.
44. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge information.
45. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

46. Within 28 days of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. write to the resident and:
       1. respond to his request for a refund of communal cleaning and management fee service charges with reference to its compensation policy.
       2. confirm its position on organising tenant meetings.
       3. ask him whether he still requires information about any service charges.
    3. pay the resident a total of £370 compensation, made up of:
       1. £120 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cleaning and management services. The landlord may deduct the £40 it previously offered if it has already paid this.
       2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge information.
       3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord may deduct the £20 it previously offered if it has already paid this.
47. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

48. We recommend that the landlord publicises up-to-date estate information including cleaning schedules, inspections, and relevant contacts.