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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202313660)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313660

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports that they were not receiving services they had paid for (window cleaning and use of the concierge).
    2. The resident’s concerns about their car parking space.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. Their lease includes an exclusive right to park in a parking space. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord uses a managing agent to manage the property and wider building/estate.
  2. On 16 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to provide a breakdown of the increased service charge costs for the next year. They also raised concerns that they had not received services that they had been charged for.
  3. On 23 March 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a breakdown of the 2022-23 service charge budget and estimated charges for 2023-24. On 27 April 2023 the landlord advised the resident that everyone living in the development had access to the car park and were entitled to use it. It also advised it was working with the managing agent to gather information for all car users so it could implement a parking permit scheme.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 28 April 2023. They said that the landlord was not managing the car park as other people were parking in their space. They were unhappy that they had needed to pay £20,000 for their parking space as well as monthly service charges. They did not think it was fair that people who had not paid for a space also had access to the car park.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 July 2023. It recognised the significance of providing a well-maintained and secure car park. It apologised for falling short of the resident’s expectations. It advised it was working with the managing agent to address the parking concerns and had already taken substantial steps to rectify the issues. It advised it could not offer a refund for the resident’s parking space but was committed to making necessary improvements to provide a more satisfactory experience. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of the delay in it issuing the stage 1 response.
  6. On 24 July 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure. They remained unhappy that they had paid for exclusive use of a parking space, but the landlord had not provided this. They said they wanted the landlord to refund all service charges they had paid in relation to the car park, as well as a partial refund of the monies they had paid for the parking space.
  7. The landlord issued its final response on 21 November 2023. It reiterated that it had put in measures to rectify the parking issues. It said it normally discussed the car park with the managing agent during fortnightly meetings. It said the resident’s final service charge statement for 2022-23 was in deficit by £397.18 and offered a goodwill payment to clear this. It also offered an additional £100 in recognition of any distress caused and £100 for any inconvenience.
  8. On 22 January 2024 the resident confirmed they wanted this Service to investigate their complaint. They remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the car park and the compensation it had offered.
  9. We spoke to the resident on 17 June 2025. They advised that in, or around, July 2024 the landlord had implemented its parking permit scheme. They said that they had not had any further issues with their parking space after this.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  2. While the resident’s contact with the landlord in February 2023 did include references to window cleaning and the concierge, their stage 1 complaint only related to parking issues. The landlord did log a formal complaint about window cleaning and the concierge on 29 September 2023. This was after we had contacted the landlord asking that it considers those matters as a complaint. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 10 October 2023.
  3. Neither the resident nor the landlord have provided any further information relating to that complaint. There is therefore no evidence that the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure or that there has been a complaint-handling failure with the landlord not having taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  4. The resident’s complaint about not receiving services they had paid for (as set out at paragraph 1.a) is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and we will not investigate it as part of this case.

Scope of investigation

  1. In their complaint about the parking issues the resident said that, as they had not had exclusive use of their parking space, they should not have needed to pay service charges relating to the car park. They asked the landlord to refund these charges.
  2. For the Ombudsman to determine what, if any, of the service charge should be refunded it would need to determine the level of service charge payable. Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states the First-Tier Property Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether a charge is payable and, if it is, the amount which is payable. As it is the resident’s position that some of their service charges are not payable – it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the tribunal to deal with this element of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about their car parking space

  1. The landlord has not indicated it has any specific policy relating to the issues raised by the resident or any general policies relating to parking and/or car parks.
  2. It would be reasonable for a resident, having paid for exclusive use of a parking space, to expect the landlord to have an appropriate process in place to ensure it was able to provide this and take action if there were any unauthorised use of spaces. There is no evidence that the landlord had any such process in place at the time it sold the lease to the resident. This was not reasonable.
  3. It is unclear whether the landlord’s actions to address the parking issues were a result of the resident’s February 2023 contact or were already ongoing. In any event, it was reasonable for the landlord to work with the managing agent to address these matters.
  4. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that it had removed the button from the exit gate to combat unauthorised use of the car park. It also explained it was planning to implement a parking permit scheme which would allow it to issue tickets to unauthorised vehicles. While these were reasonable actions for the landlord to have taken, it should have provided a clear timescale for when it expected the permit scheme to become operational. It also would have been reasonable for it to have considered whether there were any other steps it could take in the interim to assist the resident. There is no evidence that it did so.
  5. Given the time that had passed between the stage 1 response and the final response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided an update on the progress of the parking permit scheme. It should have explained what actions it (either directly or via the managing agent) had taken so far, what actions remained outstanding, what it was doing to ensure it completed those in a reasonable period, and an updated timescale for the scheme becoming operational. It was not reasonable for the landlord to have simply reiterated the information it had previously given to the resident.
  6. Had the landlord provided the above information it may have given the resident confidence that it had listened to their concerns and was genuinely attempting to resolve the issues. This may have prevented the resident feeling that they had to escalate their complaint, either to stage 2 of the complaint procedure or to this Service, to get a resolution.
  7. The landlord’s failure to provide this information means that we cannot reasonably conclude that, at the time of the final response, it had resolved the issue. There is no evidence that the landlord’s actions up until that point had stopped other people parking in the resident’s space or that it would implement the permit scheme within a reasonable time.
  8. For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about their car parking space.
  9. The landlord’s offered compensation of £597.18 in its final response may have been reasonable if it had resolved the complaint. However, it appears there was an additional period of approximately 8 months before it implemented the proposed permit scheme. We consider it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £250 to recognise the further frustration and inconvenience that it was likely to have caused. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations like this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.
  10. The resident has said that the landlord should refund the monies they paid for the parking space. However, it does appear the resident has had use of the space and the landlord has now taken steps to rectify the situation. On this basis, the Ombudsman does not consider it would be reasonable to order this as a remedy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states:
    1. It would send stage 1 decisions within 10 working days of logging a complaint.
    2. It would send final decisions within 20 working days of the request to escalate the complaint.
    3. If it required extra time (at either stage) it would write to the resident to explain why and then write again within a further 10 working days. If it required even more time it would agree this with the resident.
  2. The landlord took 55 working days to send its stage 1 decision. This was significantly outside its stated timescale. There is no evidence that it contacted the resident to explain why it needed additional time or agree an extended timescale for it to respond. This was not appropriate.
  3. The landlord did acknowledge in its stage 1 response that there had been a delay and offered £50 compensation. This was reasonable. However, the resident when escalating their complaint to this Service advised that the landlord had not paid this compensation to them. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the payment. This was not appropriate.
  4. The landlord’s evidence shows it received the resident’s escalation request on 24 July 2023. There is no evidence that it took any action at that time. The resident contacted us to advise they had not had a final response and we wrote to the landlord on 14 November 2023 to ask it to respond. It appears that it was only after this contact that the landlord reviewed the request. This was not appropriate.
  5. It took 87 working days for the landlord to send its final response. This was also significantly outside its stated timescale. As was the case at stage 1 there is no evidence that it contacted the resident to explain why it needed additional time or agree an extended timescale for it to respond. This was not appropriate.
  6. In its final response the landlord does state that it could have managed the resident’s enquiries more effectively and that there were delays in responding due to a backlog. It was reasonable for the landlord to have recognised and apologised for this. It could have improved on this point by being clearer about whether it was referring to the resident’s enquiries about the parking issues, or their complaint, or both.
  7. For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.
  8. It is unclear whether the landlord intended for any of the compensation offered in its final response to be a remedy for the complaint handling failures. Given that we have found the offered £597.18 was not reasonable compensation for the substantive complaint, we consider it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 in recognition of its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that they were not receiving services they had paid for
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about their car parking space.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination pay the resident compensation of £997.18. This comprises:
    1. The £597.18 offered in its final response of 21 November 2023.
    2. £250 in recognition of the frustration and inconvenience that it would likely have caused by the additional delay in implementing the permit scheme.
    3. £150 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint and recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.