London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202445476)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445476

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 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 condition of the property when let and the landlord’s handling of reported repairs.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor. She moved into the property on 10 June 2024 through a mutual exchange.
On 13 June 2024 the resident told the landlord the basement of the property was missing a door and contained rubbish that did not belong to her. The landlord visited the property the following day and instructed its contractor to provide a quote to complete the works.
The resident complained to the landlord on 24 June 2024. She said she was unaware of the basement issues when she viewed the property, and she had seen a rat in her kitchen due to the rubbish left behind.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 July 2024. It said it had arranged for the rubbish to be removed and for pest control to attend the property.
On 7 October 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 25 October 2024 and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said the rubbish had since been removed and further work had been needed to support the basement wall before pest control could attend. The landlord offered the resident £160 compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her correspondence with us, the resident has raised other matters that have been through the landlord’s internal complaints separately. This investigation is limited to matters which the resident complained about and completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 25 October 2024.
The resident’s original complaint to the landlord contained several other repairs that are not referred to in this report. This is because the resident is satisfied those repairs were dealt with satisfactorily during the landlord’s complaint process.

Property condition and repairs

The resident was assigned the property through a mutual exchange. On 30 April 2024 the landlord completed an inspection with the previous tenant, who signed to say the property would be left clean and cleared of all personal belongings and rubbish. On the same day, the resident signed the agreement to say she would take the property in its current condition. The resident moved into the property on 10 June 2024.
On 13 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report the property had a basement that she had not been told about. She said the basement was missing a “door” (hatch) and was in a “state”. The landlord’s notes recorded the basement had not been checked as part of the mutual exchange inspection.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states it will ensure a property is well maintained and safe for the incoming tenant by:
1. Agreeing any repairs that need to be completed before the exchange.
2. Rectifying any damage or unapproved alterations.
3. Undertake appropriate health and safety checks.
The landlord’s failure to inspect the basement of the property prior to the resident moving in was a not in line with its policy position and was unreasonable.
The landlord attended the property on 14 June 2024 to inspect the basement. It has been unable to provide any notes from the visit. On 19 June 2024 the landlord raised the following repairs:
1. Obtain a quote for the removal or rubbish and a clean-up of the basement.
2. Basement stairs were broken, and some wires were exposed.
The resident complained to the landlord on 24 June 2024. She said:
1. The basement had not been checked by the landlord before she moved in, and it contained rubbish left by the previous tenant.
2. She had seen a rat in the kitchen of her property due to the rubbish left.
3. The landlord had told her she was responsible for the rubbish removal.
The landlord’s notes following the complaint recorded several conversations with the resident regarding her taking responsibility for the removal of the rubbish from the basement. The evidence shows as part of the conditions for the exchange during the landlord’s inspection, it had agreed with the previous tenant that the property would be left clean and cleared of all personal belongings and rubbish. There is no evidence to suggest the responsibility to clear the rubbish was willingly accepted by the new resident as part of the transfer. Given a job had already been raised for the landlord to obtain a quote for the rubbish removal, this is indicative of ineffective communication between the landlord’s internal departments, or poor record keeping.
The landlord repaired the basement stairs on or before 1 July 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will aim to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord’s response was in line with its policy.
On the same day the landlord contacted the resident by phone. Its notes recorded the resident had reported a “large hole” in the basement wall that needed to be repaired. It is unclear from the documents provided whether a new job was raised.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 July 2024. It said it had completed the repair to the basement steps and had raised orders for the rubbish removal and pest control. The landlord acknowledged the hole in the basement wall and said it was considering what action to take.
The landlord’s response failed to acknowledge the repairs to the basement hatch and exposed wiring were still outstanding. It also failed to provide the resident with any timescales for the outstanding works.
From the documentation provided, it is unclear what action, if any, the landlord took regarding the basement wall, following its complaint response.
On 5 September 2024 the resident chased the repairs with the landlord. She said:
1. 2 different contractors had visited the property to quote for the rubbish removal, but no action had been taken.
2. She was unable to decorate the property until the rubbish had been removed as it would need to be carried through her flat.
3. The landlord had refused to inspect the basement wall that had been “knocked down” and she was concerned it was a supporting wall.
4. The landlord told her it had inspected an “extension” to the property in 2023, but this was not the wall she was reporting problems with.
The resident chased the repairs with the landlord on 10 September 2024. The landlord’s notes recorded the resident was updated the same day. However, there is no record of what the resident was told.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 and 25 September 2024, repeating her concerns. On 7 October 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said while the rubbish was booked in to be removed, the landlord was ignoring her other concerns about the basement wall.
The rubbish was removed from the property on 8 October 2024, 4 months after the resident initially reported the problem to the landlord. This was significantly later than the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy and unreasonable.
The resident repeated her concerns about the basement wall to the landlord on 8, 9, and 11 October 2024. She said she thought the bath was “leaning” and was concerned about walking on the floor above the missing wall.
The landlord inspected the wall on 23 October 2024 and recorded the ground floor joist had been undermined due to missing parts of a load bearing wall. The inspection noted cracks in most of the rooms and recommended a structural survey was carried out. The landlord’s contractor attended the following day to install supports.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 25 October 2024. It apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident and said:
1. The rubbish had been removed.
2. The wall had been inspected, supported, and it would monitor the repair.
3. An order had been raised for pest control to attend the property.
4. It would check the electrics within the basement.
5. It offered the resident £160 compensation.
While the response did apologise to the resident, it did not acknowledge its failure to complete a full property inspection at the time of the mutual exchange had set the conditions for the resident to move into the property with the issues present. It also failed to account for the lengthy delays in responding to the issues and failed to acknowledge the repair to the basement hatch was outstanding.
The landlord attended the property on 15 November 2024 to inspect the exposed wiring in the basement, 5 months after it was made aware of the issue. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s policy timescales.
Pest control attended to bait the property on 18 November 2024, almost 5 months after the resident first reported the issue. The landlord’s pest policy states it is responsible for treating reports of rats. The policy is silent on timescales for responding to reports. However, in addition to the delay to clear rubbish from the basement in a reasonable time, the prolonged time to start pest control treatment is likely to have had a significant impact on the resident’s peace of mind and ability to enjoy the property.
The structural survey took place on 14 January 2025 and recommended several repairs to ensure the ground floors were supported. Due to this, and other work not covered in this complaint, the landlord decided to find the resident temporary accommodation before starting the works. The resident was offered a temporary property on 13 August 2025.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord failed to complete a full inspection of the property and complete the repairs needed in line with its mutual exchange policy. This failing left the resident exposed to potential hazards such as defective stairs leading into the basement and problems with a load bearing wall.
The landlord’s response times when the resident raised issues were, in the main, outside of its policy timescales. Analysis of the evidence shows the resident waited:
1. 4 months for the rubbish to be removed and the basement wall to be inspected.
2. 5 months for pest control to attend.
3. 6 months for the basement hatch to be installed.
The evidence shows the resident needed to continually chase the repairs for action to be taken. This caused her distress and inconvenience which would have been evident in her communications to the landlord. The landlord’s complaint responses did not offer her the assurances she could have reasonably expected, such as timescales for the outstanding work.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for compensation awards when its failures cause distress and inconvenience for the resident. The policy further states in calculating compensation awards it will take into account the duration of the avoidable distress and inconvenience and the level of impact on the resident. The landlord’s compensation calculator allows for awards of £20 to £40 to given per month for low impact failings.
The landlord offered the resident £160 compensation (calculated as £40 x 4 months). Given the number of failings, the length of the delays, and some of the matters were still outstanding, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not reflective of the extent of its failings, and significantly below an amount that would be calculated in these circumstances using our remedies guidance.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the inconvenience in its complaint responses. Although its offer of compensation went some way to put things right, it failed to reflect the full extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. In addition, it did not account for the following issues:
1. The failure to adequately inspect the property at the time of the mutual exchange.
2. The failure to communicate effectively and provide a timeframe within which the repairs would completed.
The failures in this case amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the effect on the resident, we have ordered additional compensation of £400. This brings the total compensation for the repair issues to £560. This is in line with the range recommended in our remedies guidance where there were failures that adversely affected the resident, and the offer of redress was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the condition of the property when let and the landlord’s handling of reported repairs.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay directly to the resident £560 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This amount is inclusive of the £160 previously offered in its complaint responses. The landlord is free to deduct this amount from the total if it can evidence the payment has already been made.
2. Provide us and the resident with schedule or works, including timelines, for the repairs to the basement.
The landlord should reply to this service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.