London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202405185)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405185

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

5 August 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:
1. the resident’s reports concerning major repairs to the property.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 3-bedroom flat that began on 15 February 2016. The landlord was made aware during the complaints process that the resident has depression and anxiety. The exact dates are unclear, but the resident temporarily moved out of the property and returned in or around May 2023.
The landlord was aware from 20 May 2023 that the property required substantial renovations, including a new bathroom and kitchen, and new doors.
On 1 August 2023 the resident raised a complaint because:
1. he had been without electricity and gas for around 2 months.
2. he did not have a “functioning” kitchen or bathroom.
3. the condition of the property had deteriorated because his ex-partner had damaged it before leaving.
4. somebody had attended on 13 July 2023 to inspect the property but there had been no further contact with him.
5. the property was uninhabitable, and repairs needed to be completed.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 August 2023. It said:
1. it acknowledged the poor condition of the property, including the lack of gas and electric. It had arranged to surveyors to assess the repairs required, and an electrician to attend.
2. it recognised the severity of the situation, and that immediate action was required to make the home liveable again. Due to the uninhabitable nature of the property as well as the nature, extent and volume of the repair work, the resident needed to vacate the property.
3. it had already offered the resident temporary accommodation, which he had declined previously. But to move forward and for work to begin, he needed to move out. Staying at the property was “non-negotiable” because it would be a health and safety concern.
4. it found no failings in its handling of the situation, given its maintenance team had attended. But it was unable to progress repairs because the resident continued to live at the property.
The landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation on 15 August 2023, but it needed to conduct work the identified property to make it liveable. The resident moved into temporary accommodation on or around 4 October 2023. By 11 December 2023 the landlord had conducted a survey and had a full schedule of works covering the entirety of the property, which included a full rewire, and the replacement of all the internal doors, and the kitchen and bathroom.
During December 2023, the resident said he was burgled twice at his temporary accommodation. And he moved back to his property on 13 December 2023. During January 2024, the landlord raised jobs to quote for the electrical rewire, but the quotes were not accepted until 8 August 2024. The resident continued to log complaints through the landlord’s online webpage between 12 February 2024 and 17 June 2024 because the repairs were outstanding and he had not received any updates. It was unclear which of these communications the landlord considered to be his escalation request.
The landlord issued its first stage 2 response on 21 June 2024. It said:
1. it apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 decision and it would pay the resident £1,000 in recognition of this.
2. it apologised for the resident’s experiences as a whole and the impact of the ongoing issues to him and his family.
3. it had sent a task to the neighbourhood and repairs team to contact him to get all the outstanding repairs completed.
The resident continued to log complaints through the landlord’s online webpage between 24 June 2024 and 9 July 2024 because:
1. he had not been provided with any updates on the repairs.
2. he was still waiting for repairs to be undertaken, and it was taking a long time.
3. he was concerned the delay was due to pressure internally from the organisation because of close personal relationships with his ex-partner and staff members involved in the coordination of the repairs.
The landlord decided to conduct a further review of the complaint and issued a further stage 2 response on 26 July 2024. It said:
1. following its stage 1 response it had already arranged for temporary accommodation for the resident so it could restore the property.
2. it recognised there were delays in making the temporary accommodation available, but it had kept in contact with the resident during this time and apologised for this.
3. the resident had reported 2 burglaries at the temporary accommodation, which needed to be referred to the police. But it would not comment on this further because the resident’s concerns about the theft of his belongings was responded to through a separate complaint.
4. it was “clear” the level of service was not reflective of the high standards it ought to provide. Additionally, there were unacceptable delays in the restoration of the property, as well as poor communication with the resident.
5. it apologised because the resident had to contact it frequently.
6. it had briefed senior managers of the lessons learnt from this case. And it upheld the £1,000 it had previously offered to him for this. Which was credited to his rent account, which was in arrears.
7. it had plans in place to commence repairs. And it would monitor these through to completion. It also offered a single point of contact to provide updates on the case.
8. it would complete the electrical repairs first so that further work could commence. However, this could not start until the resident moved out of the property because it was uninhabitable. It would arrange to contact the resident about this.
The resident referred his complaint to us on 4 November 2024 because:
1. all the repairs remained outstanding.
2. he had incurred costs for work that the landlord ought to have carried out.
3. he could not return to the temporary accommodation the landlord had provided because of safety concerns.
4. he wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and compensate him for the distress and inconvenience of his experience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of the loss of his personal belongings during the burglaries at the temporary accommodation. As this complaint has not been referred to us, we are unable to investigate it further. While we are unable to consider the loss of his belongings, we have considered how the landlord handled his temporary accommodation.

Major repairs

The landlord has a legal duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to make repairs to the structure and exterior, such as external doors. As well as keeping in repair and working order installations for the supply of gas, electricity, water, sanitation and heating and hot water. Landlords must also make sure that properties are fit for habitation throughout the tenancy as implied by section 9A of the same Act.
The landlord’s repair policy commits to responding to repairs as follows:
1. emergency repairs, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant within 24 hours.
2. routine repairs within 25 calendar days.
In addition to its policy timescales, the landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
For context only, the resident told us that his ex-partner had destroyed the property while he was temporarily removed from it. He explained that when he returned in May 2023, he found the condition of the property to be of significant concern.
The landlord’s repair log demonstrates that it had visited the property in or around 20 May 2023. The notes associated with this appointment said that the kitchen and bathroom had been removed, and the front door was “hanging off” and needed to be secured. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude it was aware at this time that significant renovation work was required at the property. And that the property was not reasonably suitable for occupation based on the lack of kitchen and bathroom facilities.
The landlord referred to having already offered the resident temporary accommodation within its stage 1 response (8 August 2023), but the resident had declined this. While this was reasonable, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord took steps to provide alternative accommodation before the resident complained. It was not in dispute that the property was uninhabitable and that there were health and safety concerns. As such, it is a significant failing that the landlord did not take steps to provide the resident with alternative accommodation sooner.
The landlord explained that the resident was reluctant to leave his property before the complaint. There are many reasons why a resident may not wish to leave their home. And while we recognise this may have been the case, if the landlord was unable to engage with the resident about this, then it would have been reasonable in the circumstances to have considered whether proportionate legal action was necessary. Such as seeking an injunction to ensure the resident’s safety, as well as enabling it to carry out the significant repairs required. There is no evidence that this was considered as part of its approach.
Despite the landlord acknowledging in its stage 1 response that the resident could not stay at the property, it took a further 2 months (4 October 2023) to provide temporary accommodation to the resident. This was due to the relevant team managing the temporary accommodation taking 2 weeks to act on the internal request. This was further compounded by issues relating to the condition and habitability of the temporary property.
During this time, there is no evidence the landlord prioritised the resident’s safety by considering hotel accommodation while it waited for available temporary accommodation. This was concerning given the nature and extent of the issues at the property. The resident spent further time and trouble chasing the landlord for its progress with the temporary property; however, it did not keep him regularly updated. This caused him further time and trouble seeking answers. This was a failure to engage with him about its delays.
After the resident was placed in temporary accommodation, he asked for updates on the repairs, on a weekly basis, over the 14 months of the complaint (October 2023 to July 2024). This was via the landlord’s online complaint portal. The majority of the time, the landlord did not respond to the resident. When it did, it said it had passed his query onto the “relevant team”, but this was not effective in providing him with an update. Therefore, it failed to engage with him about its progress relating to the repairs. This was a significant failure because it caused avoidable time and trouble to the resident trying to find out what it was doing. As well as distress at the lack of action.
We understand that the resident said he was burgled twice at the temporary accommodation during December 2023. After which, he returned to the uninhabitable property. The resident notified the landlord of this (29 December 2023), and it told him to report the burglaries to the police. We consider it was reasonable for it to refer criminal matters for investigation by the police. However, the landlord did not demonstrate it took adequate steps to listen to his concerns and how this impacted his living circumstances. Nor did it evidence having assessed whether the temporary accommodation was safe to return to. Or any alternative means it could provide while it did this, such as hotel accommodation. In doing so, it missed opportunities to engage with the resident further and to mitigate the chances of him returning to an uninhabitable property. This was a contributing factor in the resident’s choice to return to the property.
Concerning the landlord’s progress on the repairs, it raised orders to replace the front door on 26 June 2023, 6 September 2023, and 5 February 2024. The first appointment was cancelled, but there is no evidence to explain why this was. The second appointment noted that “no action was required”. And the third job, although it was the first to be urgently categorised, was not completed until 5 February 2024. This was 9 months after the landlord was put on notice of the disrepair. Further, there is no evidence available about the reason for the landlord’s delays in raising or cancelling the jobs. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we could not be satisfied that there was a good reason for the delay in replacing the front door.
During this time the landlord did not provide any evidence of having progressed any further work to the bathroom, kitchen, gas or electrics between May 2023 and December 2023. It is unclear why this was the case, but we have seen no evidence which suggests that this delay was unavoidable.
On 7 December 2023 the landlord raised a job for the electrics. The repair logs noted that the consumer unit had been removed, and bare wiring had been left at the property. It said the electrical supply to the communal area needed to be checked to ensure it was disconnected. Given the serious nature of the job, we would have expected this to have been urgently categorised and responded to promptly under the landlord’s repair policy. Especially given the front door had not been secured by this time. However, the job was cancelled. There was no reason given for this. As such, we could not be satisfied there was a good reason for the landlord’s lack of action over this issue. This was a significant failure to respond to the concerns it had about electrical safety.
On or around 17 January 2024 the landlord inspected the property and devised a schedule of works, including kitchen and bathroom renewals. It noted the work needed to be raised urgently. It also raised a job for the property to be rewired. Based on the internal communications of the landlord, the wider work at the property was contingent on a full electrical rewire being undertaken first. Given the resident had raised concerns with the electrics and gas in his complaint (August 2023) it is unclear why it had taken the landlord 5 months to raise any work for the electrics. This was an avoidable delay.
On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that the electrical work needed to begin before it could undertake further work. The letter also said that it could not authorise the electrical work, despite needing to, because its surveyor had not responded to the request. The landlord’s repair logs also noted that it had gathered quotes for kitchen and bathroom work. And that it tried to commence this work on 25 March 2024. After which, it again found it could not do so before the electrics were completed. This demonstrated poor oversight and management of the work. Given the property was uninhabitable, and that a rewire was required first before any other works could commence, there is no evidence it took any action was taken to expedite the electrical works or ensure they could be undertaken without any further delay. That it did not contributed to the overall delay.
On 15 May 2024 the landlord raised an urgent visit to check that the electrics were safe. It noted it had a “duty of care”, and the property needed urgent electrical testing. There is no evidence it took steps to attend to the property. This was another significant failure to act on the health and safety concerns it had and in line with its repairs policy. This demonstrated a disregard for its wider duty of care.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 June 2024 as part of its first stage 2 response and said it would provide him an update on the repairs. This was after it had sent a “task” to the repairs team. There is no evidence it took any further action to progress the repairs until 8 July 2024. This was at the time the landlord was conducting its investigation as part of its second stage 2 complaint response. It should not have taken a further complaint investigation to prompt further progress. That it did was a failure that contributed to the delay.
At this time, the landlord tried to find out which team was responsible for the work. It noted it had been transferred from its minor works team to “in-house”. This is something the landlord ought to have reasonably been aware of. By 11 July 2024, the landlord raised another inspection of the property to understand the outstanding work required. It is unclear why this was necessary given its repair logs indicated it already had a full schedule of work from January 2024. This supports the ongoing theme in this case of poor management and co-ordination of the repairs.
Following its inspection on or around 16 July 2024, the landlord said it needed to quote for the electrical work to restore the rest of the property. The landlord then conducted a series of meetings internally about the property which resulted in the electrical job being approved. It said it was due to start rewiring the property on 30 July 2024. There is no evidence it did so.
When the landlord issued its second stage 2 response (26 July 2024) it said it had put plans in place to commence and monitor repairs. It also provided a single point of contact to provide the resident with updates. It re-iterated that he could not stay at the property while it did the work. The landlord appropriately made a referral to its support officer, who called the resident to discuss the need to vacate the property and return to the temporary accommodation because of health and safety concerns. The resident said that he was concerned for his health and his safety if he returned to the temporary accommodation, so he would stay with a neighbour while the work was ongoing. It is unclear why it took 7 months to engage with him about this issue, given the resident had told the landlord he had returned to the property in December 2023.
The landlord recognised during the complaint procedure that the resident was vulnerable. We consider it took steps during July 2024 to refer him to its tenancy support worker and adult social services. While this was appropriate, it was aware as early as August 2023 of the resident’s unique housing circumstances, that would have been reasonably considered to make him vulnerable. Therefore, it is unclear why it did not offer further support at a much earlier interval. That it did not was an unreasonable delay in assessing how it could support the resident with his housing situation from a vulnerability perspective.

Post complaint procedure

The landlord told us that the majority of the work is still outstanding, including the electrics, and the kitchen and bathroom refit. It said that it had been unable to undertake the work because the resident kept returning to the property, despite the former temporary accommodation remaining available to him. At this stage, it was considering the use of hotel accommodation. And it had referred the matter to its rehousing panel to “speed things up”.

Conclusion

We note the landlord’s comments by returning to the property the resident had contributed to the ongoing delay in completing the work. However, we also recognise that the resident had made the landlord aware of his concerns about the temporary accommodation as early as December 2023. No action was taken to respond to or to try to allay his concerns. This led to the resident returning to the uninhabitable property. Based on the evidence, we consider that the landlord could reasonably have taken steps to try to engage with the resident. This may have resulted in the resident feeling more prepared to accept the temporary accommodation.
If steps had been taken to engage with the resident, the landlord would then have been in a position to assess whether legal intervention was required. It is noted that legal action should be a last resort; however, the landlord has a legal obligation to ensure the property is safe and in good repair. It has failed to demonstrate that appropriate and timely action was taken to ensure that the property was returned to a habitable standard and that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the temporary accommodation. For these reasons, we have made a finding of severe maladministration.
We understand the landlord paid the resident £1,000 compensation during the complaint process. It said this was for its delays and service failures. It also said it had passed on “learning” to wider teams. While the landlord recognised its unacceptable delays and poor customer service, it did not acknowledge its failure to engage with him about the concerns he had about his temporary accommodation. Nor did it explain the reason for its prolonged delays or what learning it had identified.
We consider that this was not proportionate to address the impact of the serious failures we found over a protracted period. In the circumstances, we consider it reasonable for the landlord to recognise the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, and the failure to mitigate the risks posed to the resident by being ineffective in progressing repairs. As well as failing to engage with him throughout the process and around his concerns about the temporary accommodation. Therefore, it must apologise for this and pay the resident an additional £750. The landlord must also write to the resident to provide an update on the case, both in relation to temporary accommodation and the proposed schedule of works for the property.
To learn from the case, the landlord must conduct a case review to understand why its repair approach was not successful or efficient in progressing the repairs. As well as investigate why it did not take decisive action around the temporary accommodation issues the resident raised. And what it will do to prevent this situation from re-occurring in the future.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, our former Complaint Handling Code (the former Code) was in force. The landlord’s stage 1 response (8 August 2023) was issued within 5 working days, in accordance with the Code.
The resident contacted the landlord through the complaints portal after the stage 1 was issued. However, it is unclear at what point the landlord considered it had received a request to escalate the complaint, as no acknowledgement was issued. This was a departure from the Code. We consider that the landlord should have reasonably escalated the complaint as early as 21 September 2023, and it is a failing that it did not do so.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 June 2024, 191 working days after we consider the landlord ought to have reasonably identified that the resident remained dissatisfied. This was an unreasonable and significant delay. The landlord did not explain the reasons for the delay or seek to agree an extension with the resident. This was inappropriate and caused the resident time and trouble over a protracted period. It is noted that this also left the resident feeling that the landlord was not listening to him or doing anything to help him.
The content of the landlord’s stage 2 response was limited. It said that it was sorry for the “resident’s experiences” and “appreciated the impact of the ongoing issues” on the resident and his family. It apologised for not responding within the relevant timeframes at stage 2. It offered the resident £1,000 “for [the] delay in [its] stage 2 response.” It also said it would “send a task” to the relevant teams to contact the resident directly.
However, it did not address the reason for its delays, express an understanding of what the impact on the resident was, nor did it explain what went wrong and how it had learnt from the complaint. This was a failure to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way. Overall, it failed to be accountable to the resident.
The landlord issued a further stage 2 response to the resident on 26 July 2024. It is unclear what prompted it to do this. The resident told us he was confused about why this happened. While it is noted that a landlord may choose to review a previous complaint if the issues are ongoing, it should clearly explain the rationale for issuing further complaint correspondence.
We recognise that as part of this response, it said its standards, communications and repairs were unacceptable. And that it had briefed senior managers about the case as part of its wider learning. However, there is no evidence that this could not have formed part of its first stage 2 response. Given the issues it had identified were those it ought to have reasonably been aware of at that time. In doing so, it departed from the Code, and this led to confusion.
The former Code and the current Code both have provisions that place an obligation on the landlord to track and monitor outstanding actions expeditiously and to provide updates to residents. The landlord’s complaint handling procedure failed to do this. The evidence shows that although the resident was submitting regular complaints and requests for updates, the landlord was ineffective in responding to these appropriately. There was a clear lack of accountability about who was responsible for dealing with the complaint correspondence and monitoring the known outstanding actions through to completion. Had it done this, it would have mitigated the distress caused to the resident by its poor communications and overall delays. It also could have managed the resident’s expectations about the issues he was experiencing by liaising with relevant teams to provide a providing meaningful responses.

Conclusion

Initially, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint handling was appropriate. However, it failed to recognise the resident’s continued dissatisfaction and trigger stage 2 of its complaints process. This impacted its ability to respond on time during stage 2 of the process. The landlord offered £1,000 in total for what it initially said was its complaint handling delay. It later explained this was for the overall delays and service failures. However, it is unclear how it calculated its award.
There was also an overarching theme of poor communication, inaccessibility to the complaint handler, and a lack of accountability for the complaint. As well as inefficient monitoring of the outstanding actions. This caused the resident time and trouble logging new complaints through its portal on almost a weekly basis, throughout the complaint process to get updates. These were often passed on but not responded to in any meaningful capacity. It then acted outside of its complaint process to issue a further final response, which caused the resident confusion.
For these reasons, we consider the complaint process was significantly flawed. And failed to be effective in ensuring the resident was heard and understood. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration for its complaint handling.
To put things right, the landlord must apologise to the resident. It must also conduct a case review and explain to the resident what it considers the cause of its failures to be. It must also demonstrate having conducted complaint handling training within the last 6 months to ensure its staff are aware of its responsibilities when responding to complaints. It must also pay the resident £250 to recognise the impact of its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning major repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. arrange a member of the executive to call the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report. This must be followed up in writing.
2. pay the resident £1,000 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience of its response to the resident’s reports concerning major repairs to the property.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience of its complaint handling.

This is in addition to the £1,000 awarded to the resident during the complaint process. This must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against his rent account.

evidence it has arranged for complaint handling training for relevant staff members within the last 6 months that covers all its obligations under the Code. Alternatively, it must arrange to do so.
write to the resident with an update about its progress with the repairs. This must include:
1. a single point of contact managing the repairs through to conclusion.
2. the intervals the resident can expect it to communicate with him about its progress.
3. a schedule of outstanding works with associated timeframes for completion.
conduct a case review to identify the cause of:
1. its delays in conducting the repairs and electrical safety checks.
2. its delays in sourcing temporary accommodation.
3. its failure to discuss the resident’s concerns about the temporary accommodation issues in December 2023.
4. its delays in offering further support to the resident.
5. its poor overall communication about its progress.
6. its protracted failure to respond to the resident’s communications and the inaccessibility of the complaint handler during the lifetime of the complaint.
the landlord must write to us and the resident explaining the findings of its case review, including:
1. what went wrong.
2. why it went wrong.
3. what measures it will put in place to ensure this does not happen again.