London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202317243)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317243

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

08 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of balcony repairs, the erected scaffolding, and the resulting pigeon infestation.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has declared that she has asthma and mental health issues. It is not clear when the landlord became aware. It noted her account was flagged, nonetheless, reflecting this in October 2023 so that it could allocate repairs with a higher priority.
The landlord had erected scaffolding around the block in 2021, the exact date is unknown. This was in connection with the instability of some of the external balconies. It remained up for a significant amount of time and it is not clear when or if it has been removed.
The resident made a formal complaint on 9 May 2023. She said she had received no “follow up” to her concerns about the scaffolding. She said it had been up for years and it had exacerbated a pigeon infestation problem. The balconies were full of pigeon excrement; birds were breeding there and often found dead or maimed.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 May 2023. It said the work to the balconies was awaiting approval from senior management. Until work had been approved, it could not provide a timeline for completion. It had raised a job to remove a dead pigeon from her balcony.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 19 June 2023. A copy has not been provided. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2023. It said it had failed to follow up on the works that were awaiting approval at stage 1 of her complaint. It initially rejected the “order” on the cost, but it had now been approved on receipt of a more reasonable quote. It was waiting for its project team to remove some of the balconies and stabilise the “property”. Once completed, it could address the pigeons. Customer services would monitor the outcome. It acknowledged the impact the scaffolding and pigeon issue had on the resident’s mental health. It offered the resident £500 compensation. It broke this down as follows: for distress £150, inconvenience £150, time and effort £200.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service. She said it had not managed the risk and timescales. She could not use the balcony because of the pigeon infestation. She said it had recently told her she might have to move out for works because of the instability of the balcony above.
On the 19 October 2023 a landlord inspection of the resident’s balcony said hers was now separating from the wall. It recommended further investigation by a supervisor and structural engineer as the walls were bowed. The landlord said it could not carry out pigeon proofing until the balcony works were completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

It is the Ombudsman to role decide how to consider and investigate complaints subject to the Scheme and taking account of the evidence of failure presented.
As substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. However there are some instances where we need to consider historical events that happened because they are pertinent to our understanding the case. This case is one of those and as such this investigation will be focusing on events from 2021 onwards.

Balcony repairs, scaffolding, and pigeon infestation

The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to repair and maintain the structure of the property, including any shared parts of the building which the home is a part of. This aligns with its repairing obligation at section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It should also complete repairs within a reasonable period. What we consider “reasonable” is determined by the specific circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repairs policy commits to dealing with pests including pigeons. It is responsible for repairs to existing bird netting and spikes. It is also responsible for assessing the need for any new deterrent or protection.
The landlord referenced in its complaint response 19 October 2023, that a historical issue with pigeons was raised by the resident in 2021. In response, it cleaned the building on 1 November 2021. It said she had not raised the issue again until 2023. Records, however, indicated that on 22 February 2022 the resident expressed her concerns about the unsafe balconies (those above her) and the time the scaffolding had been up. She pointed out the scaffolding was exacerbating a problem with pigeons.
The landlord responded on 25 February 2022. It advised that it was removing some balconies, commencing on 8 March 2022 for investigation. Once these were complete and its engineers had found a solution to refit them, the scaffolding would be removed. It said this would be a matter of 3-4 weeks.
Scaffolding apart from being unsightly, when up for any length of time, can be oppressive for the people living with it. It shuts out light, it can restrict the use of walkways, increase the risk of security and even affect some household insurance. It should only be erected for necessary work at height, when work or inspections are about to start and taken down swiftly when it is no longer needed.
It was not clear exactly when the landlord erected the scaffolding, but the resident quoted “months” in her February 2022 email, suggesting it was sometime in 2021. Its response said work was not planned until early March. This could have been better planned so that residents were not subject to living with it and the associated problems months before it was necessary.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on the scaffolding on 18 April 2022. She said the pigeon problem was getting out of control. Residents could no longer go out on their balconies, her neighbour even had eggs laid on hers. It emailed her 3 times between April and May 2022, advising that it had no news about the scaffolding or could not get a response from the contractor.
On 16 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again for an update. She said that she could no longer open her windows or balcony door because of the issues. She complained about how hot this was making her flat. It did not respond, which was unreasonable.
The scaffolding was still in place when the resident made her complaint on 5 May 2023. She protested it had now been up for years, that it was unsightly and had significantly increased the pest problem. She reported she had a dead bird hanging from the balcony and birds were nesting and hatching all over the block. She highlighted the diseases caused and spread by pigeons and their faeces. She said it was a disgrace they had been left to live like this for so long.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 22 May 2023 said it was waiting for senior management approval before it could begin work on the balconies. Until it had given authorisation, it could not give any idea on timescales.
The landlord is required to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. We understand that social landlords have limited resources and are required to make the most effective use of them for the benefit of all its residents. This requires them to have budgetary responsibility for works and must have protocols in place to ensure efficiency and value for money. It is not appropriate, however, if those protocols are protracted and cause detriment to the residents.
Over a year had passed since the landlord’s specified deadline of 4 weeks from 8 March 2022. It still could not provide a timeline for the work and, subsequently, the removal of the scaffolding. In the meantime, the residents had lived with scaffolding and the associated problems it brought for over 18 months. Its response of 22 May 2023 indicated it expected them to do so indefinitely, which was not reasonable.
If landlords have building defects, major works planned or any unforeseen delays to work scheduled, it is appropriate that landlords keep residents fully informed. Here, it was not evident that there had been any adequate communication with residents. It only shared information when the resident instigated enquiries or made complaints. There was nothing to show it had explained to residents the problems with the balconies, the purpose of the scaffolding, proposals for remedial works or any timeframes. Not doing so was a service failing.
The landlord did appropriately raise an order for the removal of a dead pigeon from the resident’s balcony on 22 May 2023.
On 19 June 2023, the landlord arranged for pest control to attend the resident’s property. The contractor recommended netting be repositioned to stop the pigeons nesting on the balcony. There was nothing to show that it followed this recommendation through. On 31 July 2023, repair notes mention another job order for pest control to attend, noting it had asked the contractor to contact the resident directly. On 3 August 2023 it received a pest control quote for cleaning and netting work, for several balconies at a cost of £1079.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 August 2023. She asked if while her complaint sat at stage 2 could she have an appointment for the repairs she was waiting on for the pigeon issue. This indicates it had not progressed the work from the quote.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it believed the works awaiting approval at stage 1 would provide a suitable resolution to the resident’s complaint. However, the repairs were not undertaken. It added “Due to concerns over the stability of the balcony this was not followed up, therefore the pest issue persisted”. This explanation was confusing. The stage 1 suggested the works awaiting approval were to rectify the stability of the balconies. The stage 2 said the work had not progressed because of the stability of the balcony.
The landlord’s response also said it initially rejected a works order because of cost, but a more reasonable quote was later approved. It was now waiting for the project team to remove some balconies and stabilise the property. Again, its response was confusing. It was not clear if the work order rejected for cost and later approved, was the pigeon repairs or the balcony repairs. It also referred to the balcony repairs “stabilising the property”. It was not clear if it was referring to the building or the resident’s flat. The day the response went out, it had reported the need for a structural engineer for the movement in her balcony.
Furthermore, its final stage response still did not provide the resident with any indication of when the complaint issues would be resolved. It said when the balcony work was completed, it would carry out the pigeon repairs. It could not provide a timeline for this, and the balcony work had already been outstanding since 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the impact the scaffolding and pigeon problem had had on the resident’s mental health. It noted there were flags on her account representing her health needs. It said it would allocate her a higher priority for future repairs to prevent the situation from impacting her wellbeing. This was appropriate, but it was not clear why, if her account was flagged, she had not been given urgent priority for the repairs needed now. It knew they were affecting her wellbeing, but its lack of urgency in progressing the issue did not reflect that it had taken her vulnerabilities into account.
The landlord recognised there were service failings in its handling of this matter. It apologised to the resident and made an offer of financial redress. Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. Remedies should be commensurate to the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord offered £500 compensation. We recognise the landlord’s calculation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble was in line with its compensation policy. However, we think the sum fell short, as it did not consider the loss of amenity (her use of the balcony). We have calculated an amount using the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to reflect this, which increases the sum to a total of £750. This amount is commensurate with a failure which has had a greater impact, physical and/or emotional, on the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the balconies, scaffolding and pigeon infestation has been poor. It had not considered the impact of its actions on its residents. It started remediation for defective balconies, erected scaffolding and then failed to progress with its procurement and works within a reasonable timeframe. The resident has had to live with the stress of the defective balcony, unsightly scaffolding and a resulting pigeon infestation for the best part of 2 years. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaint process could not resolve the substantive complaint. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

From December 2020, all member landlords were required to complete an annual self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Our duty to monitor against it became statutory in April 2024, so landlords are now obliged by law to follow its requirements.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint handling policy. At stage 1, its policy commits to log a complaint within 5 working days. It will then send its written decision within 10 working days of logging the complaint. At stage 2, it will send its final written decision within 20 working days of the request to escalate. If it needs longer, it will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. The policy timeframes comply with the Code.
The landlord logged the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated on 19 June 2023. It issued its stage 2 response to her on 19 October 2023. This was a response time of 89 working days. The timescale significantly exceeded its policy response time of 20 working days. It also exceeded its extended policy response time of 30 working days.
There was also no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to explain it needed extra time, as its policy requires.
The landlord did not recognise its complaint handling failures in its complaint investigation. As such, it did not apologise, put matters right, or consider redress.
The landlord could not show that it followed its complaint handling policy in its handling of the resident’s complaint. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration in this matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of balcony repairs, the resident’s request to remove scaffolding, and the resulting pigeon infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with the following orders:
1. Provides a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Provides the resident with an action plan to enable adequate bird proofing to her balcony. To include:
  1. Details of any associated works.
  2. Details of proofing works.
  3. A timeline that is commensurate with response times in its repairs policy.
3. Pays the resident the sum of £850 broken down as follows:
  1. £750 (inclusive of £500 previously offered) for the loss of amenity.
  2. £100 for the failings identified in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident the £500 compensation previously offered, if it has not already done so.