From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202409617)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409617

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

16 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports about a window repair.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a sole assured shorthold tenancy of a maisonette with the landlord, a housing association. The resident is in her eighties and lives with her adult son and their family. The resident’s son liaised with the landlord on her behalf. When we refer to her contact, this includes that raised by him to support her.
  2. The resident made multiple reports to the landlord from 2022 that repair was needed to a bedroom window. She described the window pane and its frame becoming detached, causing the window to hang off while open. The bedroom is on the first floor, overlooking a communal space. The landlord ordered works for its contractor to replace the window.
  3. On 16 March 2023 the resident raised dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of the window repair. She raised concern about the time it was taking to be resolved. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 12 April 2023.
  4. Throughout the rest of 2023 and early 2024, the resident contacted the landlord seeking updates on the progress of works to the window. She voiced concerns about delay, a failure to keep her updated and the status of her complaint. The landlord liaised with its contractors and raised further orders.
  5. On 7 May 2024, the resident expressed disappointment to the landlord that the window was not yet fixed and about its communication. The landlord noted that it would review her concerns through stage 2 of its complaint process.
  6. On 29 May 2024 the landlord issued its complaint response to the resident. It described this as a ‘stage 2 decision’ and its ‘final response’. It summarised steps that it had taken. It acknowledged some communication failings and having cancelled an appointment without prior notice. It also admitted closing a repair order in error and appointing contractors that were not window specialists. The landlord apologised to the resident for its failings and the potential delay, inconvenience and time and effort caused. It offered her compensation of £270. Its breakdown of this sum included an amount for its delay responding to her complaint and a ‘failure to recognise the impact linked to ‘vulnerabilities’. It promised to contact her with an action plan to resolve the broken window and to monitor progress. It said it had taken learning from her complaint that would be passed to relevant internal services.
  7. The resident referred her complaint for investigation by us. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when or if the window was repaired or replaced. The most recent works start timescale that it provided to the resident was November 2024. It supplied undated images marked ‘after’ photographs. The resident told this Service earlier this month that no work had been done to the window.
  8. The resident told us that she would like the landlord to fix the window and pay increased compensation. She described that the broken window made her home cold and caused her family significant distress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said this situation had a negative effect on the health and wellbeing of her household. The courts or making a personal injury claim to a landlord’s liability insurer are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a window

  1. The landlord was required by the tenancy agreement to keep the structure and exterior of the property in ‘good repair’, including the window sills and frames. This contract said that it would complete repairs within ‘reasonable timescales’. It was also responsible for making sure the property was fit for human habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System was a relevant factor to assessing fitness for human habitation. Related repair or other remedial action was required within a reasonable period.
  2. The landlord identified in July 2022 that the resident’s window required replacement due to the extent of its deterioration. It noted its own reasonable timescale for completion as 20 working days. However, 22 months later at the point of its complaint response in May 2024, it had not completed any works to repair the window. The window was hanging off, a potential hazard to internal temperatures and safety risks. This represented a significant and unreasonable delay by the landlord to complete repairs and ensure the habitability of the property in line with its legal obligations.
  3. Multiple failings contributed to the landlord’s overall delay and failure to complete remedial works. One of these was its premature closure or ‘completion’ on its system of tasks that it raised for investigations or works. This occurred on several occasions, including in or around September 2023 when it assigned completion photos from a different property. These errors caused it internal confusion about what works were outstanding, adding further delay to progression of its next steps.
  4. The first contractor appointed to carry out works on behalf of the landlord failed to take appropriate steps. The landlord’s records show it was aware of extensive issues with their performance and the reliability of its updates. It failed to attend the resident’s home for arranged appointments, for example on 1 June and 24 July 2023. The landlord noted that there had been a repeat failure to keep both the resident and it updated and difficulties getting status updates. It knew that its contractor’s failings were impacting its ability to resolve the matter for her over a long period.
  5. Despite this, there was very little evidence that it considered or took appropriate steps to mitigate the impact of its contractor’s performance. For example, there was no evidence of a proactive system of checking works status to feedback to the resident. This placed unfair burden on the resident to chase progress and prompt the landlord to seek updates. It did not consider appointing a new contractor until late October 2023, over a year after it noted the need for a replacement window.
  6. There was little evidence of any implemented process or system enabling oversight of its appointed works. The records we reviewed showed that the landlord was not seemingly able to track and monitor the progress of its works. It was reliant on contact from its contractor that was either slow or not forthcoming. This was inappropriate. The landlord remained legally responsible to the resident in line with its obligations summarised above. It could not contract out its obligation to ensure that her home was habitable or in good repair. Its failure to appropriately oversee and manage its contractor’s performance contributed significantly to its overall delay.
  7. The landlord’s lack of effective central monitoring was also evident in its recorded awareness of the issues with the second appointed contractors. It did not know, until informed by the resident, that its contractors had been unable to progress the window works. This continued lack of oversight added to the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  8. It is unclear from the landlord’s records why or how it appointed contractors to complete works outside of their service range. This points to an error within the landlord’s contracting process. Its error was significant and caused the resident further delay and the unnecessary disruption of further persons attending her home and further time chasing progress.
  9. The resident’s reports to the landlord disclosed a potentially serious hazard, that a first floor window was hanging off. Photographs taken by the landlord at its inspection show a window frame held in place only by masking tape and gaps to outside. The resident described to us that the window’s condition caused cold air to came through the taped gaps and that she experienced distress from fear of the window falling down and unsightly living conditions. The risk of these impacts occurring was self-evident from the matters known to landlord. However, its showed very little regard for the impact on the household or risks associated with a damaged window at height.
  10. There was one acknowledgement on the landlord’s records over 22 months that the window posed a potential health and safety risk. In August 2022 the landlord suggested to the resident exploring the possibility of screwing the window shut. She expressed concern for how to enable air to enter the room during that hot summer month. There is no evidence that this potential mitigation measure was revisited as temperatures cooled or any alternative to securing the window considered with her. There is no evidence that it offered any mitigation measures for managing internal temperatures, for example supporting the cost of fans or additional heaters. There is no evidence that the landlord kept under review the risks presenting to any person that might use the land below the window hanging off.
  11. The landlord noted the resident as vulnerable on its records in 2019 due to her older age and logged the need for priority to its repairs. Over the period considered by this Service, there is no evidence that it considered her particular vulnerabilities or those of her household. The risks associated with excess cold or injury were potentially serious but it completed no assessment of whether the property remained habitable or if the conditions could negatively affect her health or that of her family. This was a serious oversight by the landlord. It showed a disregard for the impact on the resident and her family.
  12. The resident drove the landlord’s updates across the whole period of investigation. It failed to take proactive steps to ensure that she was kept informed. On multiple occasions it promised her a call back with information but failed to ensure that such call was made. This led to the resident being left for lengthy periods without any contact. For example on 4 October 2022 the resident was promised contact ‘as soon as possible’. She received no contact, causing her to chase it on 23 November 2022. The landlord put the resident to significant time and trouble promoting its liaison with her.
  13. Although the landlord’s complaint response acknowledged service failures, for which it apologised, it failed to reflect the extent of its failings. These were serious. It accepted failures of communication at certain moments of time but not the extensive communication failings that we noted across the whole period of investigation. It failed to reflect on its own responsibility for ensuring the effective appointment and management of its contract arrangements. It failed to identify multiple factors within its control that led to its severe delay and the impacts experienced by the resident.
  14. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £110 attributable to the impact from its handling of her reports about the window. Its offer was disproportionate to the level of its failings and the particular harm caused to the resident. It did not reflect the discomfort or distress caused by living for nearly 2 years with a detached window, including during cold periods. It was not reflective of the level of distress caused by the worry of the window falling out. Importantly, it did not show sufficient regard to the extent of time, trouble and inconvenience it had caused the resident by its lack of contact. The serious detriment experienced by the resident was aggravated by her vulnerability, particularly the impact of cold living conditions. The compensation did not put matters right for the resident.
  15. The landlord also failed to take the remedial steps promised to ensure and oversee the outstanding window works. The window works were not completed within a further timely period. While the landlord’s complaint response promised the resident a monitored action plan with contact, this did not happen. There was a continuation of the resident driving its updates and its failure to complete works. The resident reports to this Service that the window remains broken. The landlord has not supplied reasonable evidence to show that it completed an appropriate repair or replacement. This is a significant failure by the landlord to put matters right and implement learning from its complaint investigation.
  16. Due to the serious level of its failings and detriment to the resident considered above, this Service finds that the landlord was responsible for severe maladministration in its handling of her reports about a window.
  17. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay additional compensation to the resident of £1,900 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that she likely experienced. This is within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the circumstances for severe maladministration apply, and the redress needed to put matters right is substantial. This Service had particular regard to the detriment caused by excessively cold living conditions over a long period of time. This sum is in addition to the compensation offered in the stage 2 complaint response.
  18. The landlord is also ordered to confirm to the resident in a written schedule of works the date or dates by which it will complete the outstanding works to her bedroom window. It must also complete a review of the failings identified by this investigation, to include consideration of how it oversees contracted window works and assesses associated risks. Its review must assess available learning from our best practice guidance on window related complaints.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy defined a complaint in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by (the landlord), its own staff, or those acting on its behalf….’.
  2. The resident communicated clear expressions of dissatisfaction to the landlord before March 2023:
    1. On 1 September 2022 when the resident chased the window works, the landlord noted that she was ‘unhappy’ about the outstanding repair.
    2. On 23 November 2022 the landlord recorded a call from the resident and recorded ‘TNT was not happy’.
  3. The landlord failed to treat the resident’s concerns as a complaint in line with its own policy or the Code. It did not log a complaint until after she repeated her dissatisfaction in March 2023. The landlord’s failure put her to time and trouble repeating her complaint and delay to its progression.
  4. The landlord operated a 2 stage complaint process. In line with Code requirements, it was required to separately investigate a complaint at both stages and provide written responses. The landlord issued only one complaint response to the resident, labelled a ‘stage 2’ decision. While the landlord’s final response referred to a prior decision issued in May 2023, there was no evidence of any such response on its records. In response to our request for a copy of its complaint correspondence, the landlord advised ‘no stage 1 decision’. The landlord failed to follow the 2 stage process expected by its own policy and the Code. It logged the resident’s complaint of 16 March 2023, however did not conduct a stage 1 investigation one or reply to her.
  5. Even when the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint concerns and repeated her dissatisfaction over 2023 and early 2024, it did not review the status of her complaint. For example on 26 June 2023 it recorded that she was ‘very upset’ but simply noted this as ‘negative feedback’. On 26 October 2023 the resident referred to her complaint, asking for it to be escalated. The landlord neither progressed the outstanding stage 1 investigation or logged a new complaint.
  6. It was not until 29 May 2024 that the landlord provided the resident a response, 14 months after her complaint. Its unreasonable delay caused her to wait a significant length of time for answers to her concerns. Its failure to follow requirements prevented her access to a 2 stage investigation. Two complaint handlers reviewing her concerns separately would reasonably have offered greater opportunity for earlier learning and identification of its noted failings.
  7. The landlord’s response accepted that it was responsible for failings in its complaint handling. This acknowledgement was set out only within its compensation offer. It gave no explanation in the body of its letter to the resident of what it meant by ‘complaint handling’, for which it offered her £20. Our review of its internal notes shows that the complaint handler had identified that it closed down her complaint ‘wrongly’. It is unclear why it failed to address this within its complaint response to the resident. In line with the Code, the effective resolution of a complaint requires acknowledgement of where something has gone wrong. Simply listing ‘complaint handling’ was too vague of a description to acknowledge the resident’s experience or provide transparency for its failure.
  8. The landlord also offered the resident £140 for its delay responding to her complaint. It was appropriate that it acknowledged this failing and offered financial redress given the length of its delay. However, as noted above, its overall response did not appropriately address the extent of its complaint handling failings. Further, £20 for preventing her access to its 2 step process was disproportionately low. Its complaint handling failures caused her particular time, trouble and inconvenience chasing the progression of her complaint and she lost the chance for additional scrutiny and review of her concerns.
  9. The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It is ordered to pay additional compensation to the resident of £80. This sum is within the range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance when a landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer did not fully put matters right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a window.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Send a written apology to the resident from its chief executive for the failings identified in this report and their impact on the resident. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the compensation of £270 that it previously offered if this has not already been paid.
    3. Pay the resident compensation of £1,980. This is comprised of:
      1. £1,900 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she may have incurred from its handling of the reports about a window
      2. £80 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she may have incurred from its handling of her complaint.

This is to be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any arrears, where they exist.

  1. Write to the resident with its schedule of works for any outstanding works awaited to repair or replace the bedroom window. The schedule must list what works will be included and the date or dates by which this work will be completed. The schedule must include arrangements for making sure the suitable cleanliness of the property at sign off, making good any damage caused to the property during works, interim risk assessments and post-inspection. A copy must also to be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman.
  1. Within 12 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its identified failings and determine what action it should take to prevent reoccurrence. This must include but not be limited to a review of:
    1. Its processes for oversight, tracking and monitoring of work appointed to its window repair and renewal contractors.
    2. How it assesses risk/s in properties with defective windows.
    3. Communication.
    4. Identifying other complaints involving window repairs relating to health and safety.

The landlord may also wish to consider the lessons identified in this Service’s ‘learning from severe maladministration’ report of 13 August 2024 that focused on window-related complaints when conducting the review. 

The review should be conducted by a senior manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. A copy of the above ordered review and any associated updated policies, procedures or plans should be provided to its governing body. A copy should also be shared with the Ombudsman.