London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202435195)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435195

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 June 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 concerns about cold temperatures within the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy under an agreement dated 14 November 2022. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3 bedroom house and is occupied by the resident, her partner and 2 children. The resident has physical and mental health vulnerabilities, including reduced mobility which is known to the landlord.
On 1 October 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. The complaint involved several aspects, one of which related to the level of insulation in her property. The resident said that the property was too cold, despite her wearing layers of clothes and having the heating on. The resident said that she felt her health had deteriorated, and her mobility had worsened because of the cold temperatures.
The landlord spoke to the resident on the same day and acknowledged the complaint. On 10 October 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. it had inspected the resident’s loft in February 2023. The inspection report showed no issues, and that the loft insulation was almost brand new.
2. the property’s energy rating was a C, with A being the best and G the worst. As D was the average energy rating in the UK, it concluded that there was enough insulation in the property.
3. during their phone call on 1 October 2024, the landlord understood that the resident was not happy with its conclusion, so it would escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 October 2024 acknowledging the escalation of the complaint. On 11 October 2024, in a call with the landlord, the resident mentioned that the property lacked ventilation in the summer months.
Following a telephone call to the resident on 29 October 2024, the landlord noted the following:
1. the resident was sleeping downstairs due to her poor mobility.
2. it had raised a work order to check the resident’s heating.
3. it was looking into any issues with the property’s windows and doors.
4. it had explained to the resident that there was no evidence of a direct correlation between her deteriorating health and the condition of the property.
5. the resident reported there was no extractor fan in the kitchen which caused the kitchen to become extremely hot when cooking.
6. the resident also reported damp and mould issues caused by the poor ventilation.
On 30 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. as it had found the loft insulation to be adequate, the landlord had explored the condition of the property’s windows and doors.
2. it confirmed that the windows were in good repair and included draught excluders and new hinges, however someone would contact the resident regarding any future works for the windows and doors.
3. a visit from an Occupational Therapist would be advisable to further assess the windows, to see if the landlord could put any other measures in place to support the resident’s health.
4. it had raised a work order, and someone would contact the resident about the lack of an extractor fan in the kitchen.
5. it had made a referral to address the damp and mould issues, and someone would be in touch.
6. it suggested that the resident should complete a Person-Centred Risk Assessment (PCRA) if she had any additional needs that the landlord should be aware of.
7. it also offered the resident £20 compensation in relation to a separate aspect of her complaint.
The resident contacted this Service in December 2024. She said that she was unhappy with the property’s continued cold temperatures in the winter which she felt was impacting her health. She said she was also unhappy with the poor ventilation during warmer months. As an outcome, the resident said she wanted the temperature and ventilation issues resolved, and compensation for the landlord’s handling of her concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the cold temperature within the property had exacerbated her health conditions. Based on the evidence, we are unable to establish a direct link between the property condition and the resident’s health conditions. As a result, these matters are better suited to a court as a personal injury claim and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her concerns about the temperatures within the property.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident informed us that she was unhappy that the landlord had since decided not to install an extractor fan in the kitchen. In this case, the resident’s new complaint has not had the benefit of a full investigation under the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed. Therefore, this issue has not been assessed in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cold temperatures within the property.

The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) states that social rented homes must provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. This means homes should have efficient heating and effective insulation that protects tenants from excess cold.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) states that a healthy indoor temperature is around 21°C, although cold is not generally perceived until the temperature drops below 18°C. A small risk of adverse health effects begins once the temperature falls below 19°C. Serious health risks occur below 16°C.
The landlord’s website states that tenants have a right to a home that is fit for them to live in and free from hazards.
The landlord’s Repairs policy states that it will undertake repairs to items it is responsible for, that have become defective to the point that there is a health and safety issue that presents a risk of harm.
The policy also states that for routine day to day repairs, it aims to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days.
On 1 October 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the level of insulation in the property. She said that the property was too cold and that her she felt that her health had deteriorated as a result. The resident stated that she had reported this to the landlord in April 2024 after speaking to her GP. This Service has seen no evidence of the resident’s report to the landlord in April 2024 and is therefore unable to determine if the landlord responded to the matter within a reasonable time.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 October 2024, stating that it had inspected the resident’s loft in February 2023. Based on the inspection results and the property’s energy rating, the landlord concluded that the level of insulation was adequate. The landlord stated that as the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the conclusion during a phone call around that time, it would escalate the complaint to stage 2.
As the resident had complained about the cold temperatures in the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated this further before issuing its stage 1 response. This could have identified or ruled out other underlying causes for the cold temperature. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition. Although it responded to the resident’s concerns about the insulation, it failed to address the resident’s reports of cold temperatures. This was unreasonable.
The landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint on 11 October 2024. During the call, the resident reported a lack of ventilation in the property over the summer months, mentioning condensation on the windows and a lack of air coming into the property. On the same day, the landlord requested an assessment of the property’s windows and doors. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 October 2024 stating that due to her deteriorating mobility, she was now unable to get upstairs and was sleeping in the living room. She said that she wanted compensation for the impact on her health. The landlord called the resident on 29 October 2024 and advised that there was no evidence of a direct correlation between the condition of the property and the effect on her health.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed the suitability of the property for the resident based on her health and her difficulty using the stairs. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord discussed this with the resident. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights (found on our website) states that given the known vulnerabilities of the resident, the landlord would be expected, under the Equality Act 2010, to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the resident’s needs and responded to them. That it did not was unreasonable.
During the call on 29 October 2024, the resident also mentioned issues regarding damp and mould in the property and that there was no extractor fan in the kitchen.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 October 2024. It stated that as the property’s loft insulation was adequate, the landlord had assessed the windows and doors. The landlord confirmed that the windows were of a reasonable standard and recommended that an Occupational Therapist could suggest further measures for the landlord to support the resident’s health. It said it would contact the resident regarding any future works planned for the windows or doors.
The landlord also advised that it had raised a work order to inspect the kitchen regarding the resident’s extractor fan concern. It had also made a referral to deal with the damp and mould issues. On 31 October 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to advise her that a contractor would be in touch regarding her heating. The evidence shows that the landlord completed treatment for the damp and mould on 25 November 2024.
Whilst the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 response, it failed to fully investigate the reports of the cold temperatures within the property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to monitor the temperature as this would have determined if it fell within the HHSRS standards or if it posed a risk to the resident’s health. In accordance with the HHSRS, the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. That the landlord did not monitor the temperature was unreasonable.
In summary, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about cold temperatures within the property. This is because the landlord:
1. failed to fully investigate the resident’s reports of cold temperatures.
2. failed to assess the suitability of the property in relation to the resident’s health.
The landlord’s failures likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. After carefully considering the distress to the resident and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £250 has been made.
We have also made orders for the landlord to inspect the temperature of the resident’s property to determine whether it falls within HHSRS standards or requires further action, and to discuss the suitability of the property with the resident, informing her of any alternative options should her current property be deemed unsuitable.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint response times mirror our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out good practice for a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
The landlord’s Complaints Standard Operating Procedures state that stage 2 responses must include the following:
1. confirmation of who will be managing any ongoing complaint works.
2. timescales.
The resident raised a complaint on 1 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and issued its stage 1 response 7 working days later, on 10 October 2024. This was reasonable and in line with the Code.
The landlord offered to escalate the complaint in its stage 1 response on 10 October 2024. This was due to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s conclusion about the loft insulation. The landlord formally acknowledged the escalation to stage 2 on the same day. It issued its stage 2 complaint response 14 working days later, on 30 October 2024. This was reasonable and in line with the Code.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord outlined the next steps regarding further works to the resident’s property. It then closed the complaint. However, it failed to provide the resident with a point of contact, or any timescales for actions or completion of the works. This was a failure to manage the resident’s expectations and not in line with the landlord’s standard operating procedures.
As a result of the failure identified, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response. However, this was offered in relation to a separate aspect of the resident’s complaint and has therefore not been considered. After carefully considering the distress to the resident and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about cold temperatures within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident with an apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £300 compensation, consisting of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about cold temperatures within the property.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
3. inspect the internal temperatures of the property to ensure that they fall within HHSRS standards. It should also make an appointment to inspect the temperatures again in the winter months.
4. assess the suitability of the resident’s home in relation to her health concerns. Should the outcome of the assessment deem the property unsuitable, the landlord should write to the resident with information about alternative housing options.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.