London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202434596)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434596

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 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:
   1. Landlord’s handling of snagging works.
   2. Letter the landlord issued following an altercation.
2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has lived in the two-bedroom house with a joint tenant since 2000. The resident reports they have health vulnerabilities, including arthritis.
4. The landlord completed a major works programme at the resident’s property in 2024. This included new windows and doors. On 23 October 2024, the landlord received information from its contractors about an altercation with the resident the same day. The landlord sent the resident a letter about this on 31 October 2024.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 November 2024. She said she had the contractor’s operatives at her house on 23 October 2024 during which the contractor telephoned and hung up on her. She said the next day the landlord contacted and arranged to visit her. While on the telephone she asked the local officer to contact her, she said she did not receive contact from him. She complained the landlord had made its decision to issue the letter based on the contractor’s information only, without speaking to her and it missed appointments to do this.
6. The landlord sent the resident a complaint acknowledgement on 13 November 2024. It listed her complaint points from their telephone call the day before. The resident added to these on 13 and 15 November 2024. These were complaints about:
   1. The overall service and handling of the major works programme.
   2. Lack of communication and action from the landlord.
   3. The letter which the resident said was unfair and biased.
   4. Outstanding snagging repairs to front and back door, letter box, facia board not in place, and that the contractor damaged her flooring. She wanted these completed.
   5. The resident’s difficulty communicating with the operatives as English was not their first language.
   6. Her inability to decorate due to outstanding works, and to enjoy her home.
   7. The rudeness of the contractor who hung up on her.
   8. The contractor’s failure in sharing the front door survey report following a visit on 16 October 2024.
7. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 29 January 2025. It said it understood a verbal disagreement took place on site, which was distressing for all. It said it had followed its procedure concerning this. It could open a formal complaint or ask the local officer to contact the resident. The landlord appreciated the resident’s patience and said the outstanding repairs were an ongoing concern. It said its team had made multiple attempts to book in the repairs, however they had been cancelled. It could not arrange any more as the major works programme was ending. It offered the resident compensation of £340. This was £120 for distress and inconvenience, £60 for time and effort, £60 for poor complaint handling and £100 for the resident to complete the repairs herself.
8. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 30 January 2025. She said the landlord did not address her complaint and she should not have to pay for the repairs. The landlord sent its final response letter on 27 February 2025. The landlord said the resident was not available for the snagging appointment it had arranged on 31 January 2025. She had not arranged an alternative date by the landlord’s deadline of 3 February 2025. The landlord said it had tried multiple times to book in the works and agreed appointments had been cancelled. As such it could not book another date in and she would need to complete the snagging works herself. The landlord explained it followed its policy when it sent the letter out. It was an outline of what behaviour it would not accept from its residents. It was unable to revert the letter or give further clarification as a colleague sent it. It said the contractor’s communication was not the service the landlord expects, and it was sorry about this. It understood the inconvenience the resident felt.
9. The landlord partially upheld her complaint and offered further compensation of £320. This was an additional £80 for distress and inconvenience, £40 for time and effort, £100 for the delay to the repair and £100 for the resident to complete them.
10. The resident remains dissatisfied. She told us she would like the landlord to complete the snagging works, replace the lintel, and front door. She would like compensation for the flooring as a resolution.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of snagging works.

11. The resident advised us that the contractor installed new windows and doors at the property on 20 August 2024. She said there were various snagging issues as listed above. The resident said the contractor adjusted the front door three times between August and October 2024. She still has difficulty opening and closing it, believing their arthritis makes it harder for them, and their neighbours have had to help. The resident reported to us she has come home and found the door was unlocked as the locking points are misaligned. The resident advised the lintel is bowed and the front door warped. The resident said the landlord and contractor confirmed this in a visit in October 2024. While we have seen references to this the landlord has not provided us with evidence of this visit or any snagging or major works notes.
12. In both the landlord’s complaint responses it said there had been multiple attempts to schedule repairs and agreed appointments had been cancelled. Although the landlord is not explicit, the implication is that the resident prevented this from going ahead.
13. The only evidence the landlord provided us with of a cancelled appointment was on 31 January 2025. The evidence shows the resident emailed in on 17 January 2025 to say she would not be available for that appointment. She advised us that she was in hospital for an operation during this period. She gave the landlord and contractor ample notice she would not be available. We have not seen evidence the landlord had previously attempted to arrange an appointment.
14. After this we have seen the landlord contacted the resident from 20 – 31 January 2025 to make a snagging appointment. The landlord gave the resident a deadline to do this by 3 February 2025. If she had not, she would need to complete the repairs herself. This was a two-week period for the resident to arrange an appointment or for her to be left with the responsibility to complete the repairs herself. We acknowledge the landlord may not have been aware the resident was in hospital during this period. The landlord said it took this decision as there had been multiple attempts to schedule repairs and agreed appointments had been cancelled.
15. The repairing responsibility is the landlords. While we appreciate the landlord said the resident had missed the period for the major works programme. It has not provided us with evidence of its attempts to arrange works during that time or that the resident cancelled appointments. Therefore, we cannot confirm whether the resident was at fault for these not going ahead as it implied. The landlord’s repairs responsibility remains outside of the major works programme. It could be justified for the landlord to request that the resident take forward the repairs herself if the resident had consistently hindered the landlord in completing the repairs being done. Again, it has not shown this happened.
16. Therefore, on the evidence provided we do not believe it was appropriate or reasonable for the landlord to discharge its repairing responsibility on to the resident. In accordance with the Scheme, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of snagging works.
17. We have ordered the landlord to provide us and the resident with an action plan to complete any necessary works including realistic timeframes to do this. The compensation the landlord provided is in line with our remedies guidance for a maladministration finding. We acknowledge the landlord awarded the resident £200 for the repairs work. We consider this as compensation for the additional time the issue has remained outstanding. Also, in recognition of the landlord seeking to offload its repairing responsibility without demonstrating it made reasonable attempts to complete the repairs. Therefore, we will not deduct or award any further compensation for this finding.

The letter the landlord issued following an altercation.

18. The contractor sent the landlord information detailing the exchange with the resident. The landlord was obligated to respond to that. The landlord decided to send the resident a letter.
19. We appreciate the resident’s concern about having a letter written to her. However, when reviewing the letter, the landlord did not explicitly say the resident had breached her tenancy. It said that this type of behaviour would not be acceptable, rather than saying the resident was guilty of it. The landlord said it was reviewing the incident with its contractor and would appreciate the resident’s cooperation to discuss further. The landlord asked the resident to contact it. The resident reported in her complaint she did this, but she did not receive a telephone call back. She also said the landlord did not attend a meeting to discuss this.
20. After sending a letter such as this, the landlord has an obligation to fairly investigate the allegations so it can understand each person’s account. Through the complaints process the resident raised that the landlord had not taken her account. The landlord should have addressed this, however, it did not. Once reported this had not happened, it would be appropriate for the landlord to take the resident’s account or explain if this was not necessary. It was understandable that the resident believed the landlord acted in an unfair way as it did not take her account.
21. We expect the landlord to keep robust records. So, if the resident says it did not respond or attend a meeting there is evidence of this and its actions. We have received no evidence from the landlord regarding this, as such, we cannot determine that the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
22. The landlord had a responsibility to respond to the contractor’s allegation. It did this by writing a letter to advise the resident what the contractor had said and for her to call the landlord. We recognise the landlord could have been more explicit, highlighting it was not accusing the resident by using the word alleged. This would have been clearer and may have meant the resident did not believe the landlord was supporting the contractor over her. We have not seen evidence the landlord contacted the resident after sending the letter or that it investigated. In accordance with the Scheme, we find there was service failure in the letter the landlord issued following an altercation.
23. When deciding the order for this service failure, we recognise financial redress sometimes cannot remedy the impact of the landlord’s actions or inactions. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord is to send the resident an apology specifically concerning this service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

24. In its stage 1 response the landlord offered the resident £60 for poor complaint handling, but did not explicitly say what it had done.
25. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will provide its stage 1 response in 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances it may need longer, but it will keep the resident informed. The landlord was 41 working days late in issuing its stage 1 response. It did not explicitly recognise this or apologise. We have not seen evidence it proactively contacted the resident to advise of delays. We have seen that the resident chased the landlord for a response on at least three occasions. This indicates she was frustrated when the landlord did not act in line with its policy.
26. It was good complaint handling that the landlord telephoned the resident ahead of both of its complaint responses. However, we have not seen evidence its complaint responses reflected their discussion and what the landlord confirmed in its stage 1 acknowledgement letter. For example, the landlord did not provide a response to the resident’s complaint about her damaged flooring. The resident recognised this in her escalation request as she said the stage 1 response did not address her complaint. This was likely to have added to the resident’s frustration and lead to a loss of confidence in the landlord. In addition to not addressing the full complaint, the landlord’s responses were brief, and its meaning was often not explicit. For example, when the landlord said the appointments had been cancelled, it was not clear who did this.
27. The landlord said in an email to the resident dated 20 January 2025, that the stage 1 response will be issued once the snagging repairs were fixed. This is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This states the landlord must provide a response to the resident when the answer is known, not when outstanding actions required to address the issues are completed.
28. In its final response letter, the landlord said it could not revert or give further clarification regarding the warning letter as a colleague had sent it. The landlord should operate as one service, however, and so should have been able to explain or review the audit trail that led to its approach to the situation. It was not reasonable that the landlord stated it could offer no further clarity as the letter had been issued by another member of staff.
29. The landlord recognised it had handled the complaint poorly but did not specify how. Therefore, we have not seen evidence the landlord acted in line with our dispute resolution principles. It tried to put things right, but it did not evidence any learning, and did not fairly deal with the resident’s complaint by not acting in line with the Code or addressing the resident’s complaint fully. In accordance with the Scheme, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
30. Our remedies guidance sets compensation for service failure between £50-£100. A number of the additional failings happened after the landlord offered the £60 in its stage 1 response. As such it would be appropriate to put things right with a higher compensation award. As the landlord has awarded £60, we have awarded an additional £40 for the additional failures found in our assessment. We have also ordered for the landlord to provide the details of its or its contractors insurers for the resident to decide if she wishes to make a claim for the flooring she reported as being damaged.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the snagging works.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the letter the landlord issued following an altercation.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

34. The landlord is to write to the resident to apologise specifically concerning the service failure for the letter the landlord issued following an altercation.
35. The landlord is to provide us and the resident with an action plan to complete any necessary works. This should include the likely timeframe for the start and completion. If the landlord decides to use the same contractor, it must ensure a member of its staff is also present for appointments. The landlord should work with the resident to agree a start date.
36. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £700. This includes the landlord’s previous compensation offer of £660. If the resident has already received this compensation, then the landlord is to pay the outstanding £40. The compensation comprises of:
    1. £320 and £340 previously offered by the landlord in its complaint responses.
    2. £40 for the landlord’s complaint handling.
37. The landlord is to provide the resident with its insurance details so that the resident can pursue a claim for the flooring she complained about.
38. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to us within four weeks of the date of this report.