Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202228981)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228981

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 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 landlord’s handling of:
    1. Snagging works in the property.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the fire alarm trunking.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a one-bedroom house.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 8 February 2023 regarding the landlord’s handling of works to install a new kitchen and bathroom. The timeframe to complete the works had been extended to 3 weeks, which she had to take unpaid leave for. She reported issues with contractors failing to attend and not being aware of the schedule. She said the fire alarms fitted with cable coverings in the living room and hallway were unsightly. She also raised concerns with the kitchen and bathroom fans, and that there was no shower hose. She wanted the landlord to complete the works by 14 February 2023, resolve the repair issues, and pay compensation for loss of earnings due to missed appointments.
  3. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 24 May 2023. She said a contractor attended on 23 May 2023 to replace the kitchen fan, but the work was unsuccessful. She reiterated that the smoke alarm was unsightly and asked the landlord to remove it. On 8 June 2023 the resident called the landlord to discuss the complaint. She raised additional concerns that the kitchen window and vent was painted shut, the contractor had painted the copper pipes white, the loft insulation needed to be put back to the correct position, the washing machine hose was leaking, the baton above the bathroom window needed to be cut back, the shower hose was constantly dripping, and the larder unit door was not level. She requested compensation.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 June 2023. It said it had completed the outstanding repairs following the refurbishment works. It is required to have a compliant smoke alarm system for the safety of residents. It apologised that the resident was unsatisfied with the covering used. It inspected the low pressure in the bathroom shower. It said the facilities were “for use while sitting in the bath and rinsing of the hair and was not installed as a stand-up shower”. It apologised for the delay in completing the works and issuing the response.
  5. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint following the outcome of an appointment on 3 August 2023. The exact date of the escalation request is unknown. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not followed the snagging list. She said there were outstanding works to the fire alarm covering, the shower head, shower rail, paint work in the boiler cupboard, the curtain baton, loft insulation, and washing machine hose. She said she had used most of her annual leave to provide access for the works.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 November 2023.
    1. It reiterated that the fire alarm was installed for health and safety reasons in line with its policy. It was unable to remove it.
    2. The resident was previously able to use the push-on shower hose as the water pressure was good. The resident advised she rarely has baths due to health problems. It would investigate whether it could install a pump. Alternatively, the resident could contact the council for an occupational therapy assessment.
    3. It apologised for the delays in completing the snagging works. The resident had declined an inspection and only wanted the repairs. It apologised that it had attended without notice. It had struggled to confirm access with the resident, which it required to complete the works. It was unable to pay compensation for loss of income.
    4. Works to the stopcock, bathroom sink, and fans were now completed. Repairs to the painted copper pipes, leaking washing machine hose, and baton above the bathroom window remained outstanding. It was unable to provide a timeframe as it needed to arrange appointments with the resident.
    5. It offered £930 compensation comprised of £200 as a gesture of goodwill for the time taken off work, £200 for the time taken to resolve the complaint, £150 for the poor complaint handling, £80 for the missed appointments, and £300 for the service failure in its handling of the repairs.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she said issues with the fire alarm trunking and loft insulation remained outstanding. She said the trunking looked unsightly, which the landlord said it would resolve in December 2023. She wanted it to be placed inside the ceiling, so it was out of sight. She also stated that the landlord had not reinstated the loft insulation following the refurbishment works.

Assessment and findings

Snagging works in the property

  1. In accordance with the repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property and fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation.  It notes “where age and wear and tear affects key components such as kitchens, bathroom, doors and windows, these will be replaced through a planned programmes of work”. It will complete non-emergency repairs within 20-working days.
  2. The landlord completed bathroom and kitchen refurbishment works in January 2023. The resident subsequently raised a complaint on 8 February 2023 about multiple snagging issues. The issues included no shower hose on the bath, issues with the bathroom tiles, the kitchen fan was too big and prevented the resident from using her blinds, and the bathroom fan was worse than the previous fan. She also reported issues with contractors failing to attend and not informing her of appointments. The resident further chased the works on 24 March 2023. The landlord referred the issues to the contractor on 31 March 2023, which was an unreasonable delay in addressing her concerns.
  3. The resident proposed dates for the works on 4 April 2023. She also reported additional repair issues including that the contractor removed insulation from the loft when completing works, which caused a draft. The resident further chased the works on 13 April 2023 and 24 April 2023. On 8 June 2023, the landlord told the resident it had tried to arrange an appointment but was unsuccessful. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm this, so we cannot confirm it took reasonable steps to arrange the appointment and fulfil its repair obligations.
  4. The contractor told the landlord on 15 June 2023 that they needed to visit the property to establish the work requirements, but the resident would not allow access for an inspection. It noted the resident requested it to complete the works on 21 June 2023, but it needed to assess the required materials. It is understood that the resident wanted to limit the number of appointments to reduce the inconvenience caused. However, inspections are often a key aspect of the repair process. The landlord would therefore not be responsible for any delays that arose from the resident not allowing access for the inspection.
  5. In its stage 1 response on 18 June 2023 the landlord said it had completed outstanding works following the refurbishment. HowevHowever, the evidence provided does not support that it had completed all the works at this stage. The landlord should ensure that it properly considers its handling of the issues raised in the complaint to provide an accurate response. Nonetheless, it is accepted that the landlord likely completed some of the snagging works at this stage due to the absence of further reports.
  6. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Further to this, the Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report noted that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. If the landlord retained clear records, it may have prevented some of the delays in completing the works.
  7. The contractor attended on 3 August 2023. The same day, the resident told the Service that the landlord completed works to the kitchen window, larder handle, extractor fan, and brackets. However, she said that the contractor refused to complete all the works on the snagging list. The landlord noted on 15 August 2023 that all works were completed, and it needed to confirm the resident was happy. There is no evidence to confirm it followed up, which was a missed opportunity to ensure it had resolved all the issues in full.
  8. In its final response on 17 November 2023, the landlord recognised a few outstanding repairs including to the painting on copper pipes, washing machine hose, and window baton. It stated that although it aims to complete outstanding works in a reasonable timeframe, it requires residents to provide appropriate access. It explained it would complete the works at a mutually agreeable appointment. It is unclear whether the landlord has since completed the work, so an order has been made below to address any outstanding issues.
  9. The resident reported that works to the loft insulation remains outstanding. The landlord failed to address this at both stages, despite the resident including the matter in her complaint. This likely delayed resolving the issue. The landlord has not provided any repair records demonstrating it has attempted to complete the work. It has therefore failed to uphold this element of its repair responsibilities.
  10. In view of the evidence, it is clear the landlord exceeded its repair timeframe to complete the snagging works. It is recognised that the delays due to access issues were outside of its control. The landlord recognised this in its final response and apologised for the delay. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  11. The landlord offered £200 as a gesture of goodwill for the time off work, £200 for the time to resolve the complaint, £80 for missed appointments, and £300 for the service failures and delays. The Service’s remedies guidance states that awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failure adversely impacted the resident. The compensation offered exceeded this level so the landlord has therefore redressed the failings identified at the final response.
  12. However, repairs to the loft insulation remain outstanding. It is likely that this increased the resident’s energy costs. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to complete the works and pay the resident an additional £200 compensation.

The resident’s concerns about the fire alarm trunking

  1. The landlord’s website states that it is responsible for repairs to hard-wired smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. As part of a schedule of works, the landlord replaced the smoke alarms. The resident raised a complaint on 8 February 2023 as she said the alarms were fitted with cable coverings in the living room and hallway, which was unsightly. On 4 April 2023 she added that the clerk of works said there should not be an alarm in the living room as the property is not a high fire risk. She further chased the matter on 24 May 2023 and asked the landlord to remove the smoke alarm.
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 8 June 2023 and said that the contractor had tried to arrange an appointment for works, including the trunking. This is the first time it appears to have addressed her concerns, 4 months after she initially raised the issue, which was an unreasonable delay. It is understood the landlord would likely have needed to inspect the trunking to ascertain whether it would complete any works to improve the aesthetic. However, it should have done so at an earlier date in order to manage the resident’s expectations about the actions it could take at the earliest opportunity.
  3. In its complaint responses, the landlord said that it is obliged to install a compliant fire alarm system, which includes alarms in the kitchen, hallway, landing, and living room. Further to this, it internally noted that Carbon Monoxide Regulations places a duty on it to provide at least one smoke alarm on each storey of residents’ properties, where there is a room used as living accommodation. The landlord apologised that the resident thought the fire alarm trunking was unsightly, but said it had to remain due to health and safety reasons. This was an appropriate reason for not completing the requested work.
  4. The landlord raised a work order on 14 November 2023 to inspect whether the trunking had been fitted correctly as the resident thought it was unsightly. The contractor noted that they could move the cabling into the ceiling, but this would require cutting into the ceiling and completing subsequent remedial works. The resident told the Service that she was happy with the suggestion to hide the cables behind the plaster. However, the landlord’s repair records noted that it would only complete works to resolve repair issues, and it would not cut into the ceiling. There is no evidence to confirm it shared the findings with the resident so it failed to manage her expectations about the actions it could take. This is somewhat mitigated as the landlord was clear in its final response that the trunking would remain, albeit this was before the subsequent appointment on 28 November 2023.
  5. It was reasonable that the landlord assessed whether the trunking was unsightly due to a repair issue. However, as there is no evidence to suggest it identified any repair issues, it would not be obliged to complete any works to improve the aesthetic properties. Such work would be considered an improvement rather than a repair. Social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to allocate funding appropriately to provide the best service to all residents. Therefore, it is unlikely that it will prioritise works to improve visual appearance.
  6. Overall, there was a delay in the landlord addressing the resident’s concerns, however, this did not ultimately impact the outcome of the complaint. The landlord installed the fire alarm trunking to comply with fire regulations and provide additional fire safety measures. The landlord would not be expected to complete further works to improve the appearance. Nonetheless, it should apologise for the delays in addressing the resident’s concerns as this caused her additional time and effort pursuing the matter.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident initially requested to raise a complaint on 8 February 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint. She chased the complaint on 24 March 2023 and 24 May 2023, causing her additional time and effort pursuing the matter. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 June 2023. It therefore exceeded its response timeframe by 79 working days which was an unreasonable delay.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 14 November 2023 that she remained dissatisfied. It then issued its stage 2 response on 17 November 2023, which was within its response timeframe.
  4. In line with the Service’s complaint handling code, landlords must respond to all points raised in the complaint. The resident raised concerns about numerous snagging issues, but the landlord’s stage 1 response focused on the fire alarm trunking and shower. As such, there was a missed opportunity to resolve the issues at the earliest opportunity. It also meant the resident did not have the chance to raise any questions about the landlord’s response as it only addressed the additional snagging issues at stage 2.
  5. In its final response the landlord offered £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures. Although the landlord offered compensation, it did not identify its specific failings. This was a missed opportunity to reflect on the case and take learnings. Nonetheless, the landlord made an award of compensation which was reasonable to satisfactorily recognise its handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the snagging works in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire alarm trunking.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has reasonably redressed its handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. In addition to the £930 already offered, the landlord must pay the resident a further £200 compensation for its failings in handling the repairs to the loft insulation. The landlord should provide evidence to the Service of the total payment of £1130.
  2. The landlord must inspect the loft and complete any necessary repairs to the insulation. It should provide repair records to confirm it has completed the required works.
  3. The landlord must provide repair records to confirm that it has competed all the repairs identified as outstanding in its stage 2 response. This should include the painting on copper pipes, washing machine hose, and window baton.
  4. The landlord should apologise for the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns that the fire alarm trunking was unsightly and confirming whether it would complete any works to address the issue.
  5. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.