London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202419855)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419855

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Report of outstanding repairs to a kitchen ventilation unit.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom ground floor flat, owned by the landlord, where he resides with his wife.
3. The resident complained by telephone to the landlord on 22 June 2023. He said that the kitchen ventilation extractor was not working and the matter had been ongoing since November 2022. He had been calling regularly for updates but always received the same response.
4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 23 June 2023. It said it had sent the complaint to its direct maintenance team and asked them to confirm an appointment. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 23 August 2023 following its failure to complete the repair.
5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 12 March 2024. It apologised that it had failed to resolve the complaint at stage 1. It said it had raised an order to its maintenance team to review a previous report from its contractor. It offered £420 compensation comprising:
   1. £100 for the delay in completing the repair.
   2. £120 for distress and inconvenience.
   3. £100 for time and effort.
   4. £100 for complaint handling.
6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He told us in March 2025 that the repair remains outstanding. He wants it to complete the repair and increase its compensation offer for the further delays.

Assessment and findings

Report of outstanding repairs to a kitchen ventilation unit

7. The landlord and resident provided limited evidence for this case. This has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. Our investigation has, therefore, relied on the available evidence to determine this complaint.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within an average of 25 calendar days. In the resident’s complaint he said that he had been reporting his repair since November 2022.
9. The landlord’s records show that its ventilation contractor completed an inspection on 11 January 2023. The contractor’s report states that the ventilation unit was an “old style vent aixa cooker hood”. The unit had not been maintained or serviced for years and was condemnable. The contractor cleaned the filter but the heat exchanger was filled with grease. It reassembled the unit and left it running but commented that it was in poor condition and required a full replacement. The extractor sat above a gas hob so a bigger unit was not an option. It only had 550mm height to make it compliant. It would discuss regulations and a suitable unit as “condensate run” would be a problem.
10. There is no evidence to suggest that any further action was taken following the landlord’s contractor’s report.
11. The resident chased the repair on 11 April and 9 May 2023. He complained to the landlord on 22 June 2023, stating that his repair remained outstanding.
12. On the same date, the landlord’s records show that the repair was with its contractor. However, after calling the contractor, the landlord was told that the contractor was unable to locate any information on the repair.
13. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it apologised that the resident had the need to raise a complaint. It had spoken with him on the telephone and appreciated the problems he had experienced. It said it had sent the complaint to its maintenance team, asking them to ensure the appointment was booked for 30 June 2023. It would ensure that it specified the kitchen, not bathroom fan which appeared on the order.
14. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the outstanding repair and difficulties the resident experienced in getting a resolution. However, while it confirmed that it would visit in June to inspect the ventilation unit, it should have been aware from its contractor’s report of the required resolution. This does not demonstrate that it had thoroughly investigated the resident’s complaint or its repairs records.
15. The landlord’s records of 5 July 2023 referred to the ventilation system in its properties and the resident waiting for his unit in the kitchen to be fixed. It noted an order for another property with a different contractor. Its contractor had reported that the job was closed as it was unable to provide a solution. This was due to the gas hob being installed under the unit. It referred to needing to complete a joint visit. This suggests that no visit was completed in June 2023 as stated in its stage 1 response.
16. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 August 2023 as the repair remained outstanding.
17. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it apologised that it had not resolved the matter. It said it had raised an order to its maintenance team to review the previous contractor’s report. Its supervisor would be leading on this and it gave a new job reference number. It said the resident could follow this up and gave a telephone number. It apologised for the inconvenience, distress, and frustration. It acknowledged it had failed to complete the repair within its timeline or communicate effectively. It offered £320 compensation for the repair delay, distress and inconvenience, and time and effort.
18. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
19. Following the landlord’s final response the resident contacted us on 4 October 2024, stating that it had failed to attend an appointment that day or contact him. He told us in March 2025 that the repair remains outstanding and he has mould appearing which he believes stems from the lack of ventilation in his home.
20. The landlord’s apology for the delay in completing the repairs was appropriate. Its compensation offer was also reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance at the time of its response. However, it has failed to attend appointments, communicate effectively, or progress the repair to resolution. It also failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint or say how it would prevent similar failings in the future. We have, therefore, made a finding of maladministration.
21. We have ordered that the landlord pay further compensation of £320. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. We have also made an order that the landlord repair the ventilation unit.

Associated complaint

22. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
23. The resident raised his complaint on 22 June 2023. The landlord responded the following day in line with its complaint policy timescale.
24. However, the resident escalated his complaint on 23 August 2023. The landlord responded 141 working days later which was 121 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. Its response did not offer an apology or explain its late reply. It did, however, offer £100 compensation for its complaint handling. Its offer was not proportionate to the 7 month delay experienced by the resident. We have, therefore, made a finding of maladministration and awarded additional compensation.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of outstanding repairs to a kitchen ventilation unit.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

27. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of this report:
    1. Pay directly to the resident the sum of £840 broken down as follows:
       1. £420 offered in its stage 2 response (this can be deducted if already paid).
       2. £320 for the distress and inconvenience likely incurred by the resident as a result of the further delays in completing the repair.
       3. £100 for the time and trouble likely incurred by the resident as a result of the delays in its complaint handling.
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    3. Arrange to replace/repair the ventilation unit.
    4. Provide documentary evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

28. The landlord should consider additional compensation from the date of this report until the repair is complete.