London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202309453)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309453

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s windows and doors.
2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. A compensation payment for a previous repair.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident reported issues with his windows and doors in March 2023. This included the resident stating the property was cold and he had high heating bills. The landlord raised appointments to investigate the reports.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 16 May 2023. In his complaint he complained of its handling of the windows and door works. He also complained about its handling of reports of ASB which he had made, including noise, dogs roaming and fouling, and use of communal area. Additionally, he complained that he had not received compensation for work it had conducted to his heating system in early 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 May 2023. It said it had taken appropriate action regarding the ASB reports. It said the windows and doors for the building were on a replacement programme, but it was unable to provide a timeframe for the major works to take place. However, it noted that it had commenced works to the resident’s own windows. It did not provide a response regarding the compensation payment.
The resident escalated his complaint the next day. He said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and questioned the responses it had provided. He added that all he received was apologies but nothing had been done.
The resident continued to report ASB and chase the window repairs during June, July, and August 2023. During this time, he requested updates regarding his complaint. The landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint on 30 August 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 19 October 2023. In its response it provided an explanation of the actions it took regarding his ASB reports. It noted works to replace the windows and doors would begin in January 2024. There was an outstanding repair for the windows and it said it had tried to contact him. It requested he contact it if he wanted the works conducted. It confirmed it had made a compensation payment to him regarding the boiler repair. It upheld the complaint and made a total offer of compensation of £270.
In bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has said he wanted the landlord to repair or replace the windows and provide redress for the time and effort in pursuing the issues he had raised.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The resident in his complaint raised concerns of discrimination. We recognise this is a serious allegation. It may help to explain the Ombudsman cannot make findings under the Equalities Act (2010). Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair, and reasonable.
The landlord stage 2 response contained reference to the resident making a complaint about bollards at the block. That complaint is currently being investigated separately by the Ombudsman. Therefore, there will be no further reference during this report to that complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to windows and doors

The landlord’s repair records show the resident reported the windows at the property were rotten and had gaps in March 2023. It noted he said he was using a lot of heating. It made an appointment for 28 March 2023.
On 23 March 2023 the landlord records noted that the resident had said he was using £500 per month in heating bills due to the property being so cold. Its operative had attended the property previously in April 2022 and noted windows for the block were part of planned maintenance. It could not however see any planned works. It rescheduled the appointment to 30 March 2023.
The landlord’s records do not show if that appointment took place or if so, what actions it took. There was no further action taken by it until it booked a new appointment on 17 May 2023 to take place on 23 May 2023.
In the resident’s complaint of 16 May 2023, he said he made many reports of draughts from damaged rotten windows and was told of planned maintenance. However, the works were left for over a year while he was waiting for the repairs to happen after he reported the condition and draughts. He said a supervisor visited the property on 29 March 2023 but could not do anything and said they would send a carpenter to conduct a draught excluder installation to the front windows and front and back doors. The supervisor said the landlord would also fix the back door that did not close properly and complete repairs outside, to stop further rotting windows. Since then, he had no information or contact from it.
In its stage 1 response on 30 May 2023 the landlord stated it understood the block’s windows were on a window programme which was a cyclical plan repair and referred to the major work team. It was unable to secure a time frame and would provide him with an update with further information once received from the major work team. It added its records confirmed that while it was agreeing and planning the major works, repair works had started for window maintenance to his property.
The response failed to provide adequate information to the resident. The landlord did not provide him with either an expected timeframe for the major works to take place or at least a date it would next provide an update to him. It also provided no comment of the current condition and if the windows required any emergency repairs given his reports indicated there were rotten, had gaps, and he had an increase in his energy costs. Although it stated windows maintenance had started, it provided no further explanation what those works were and if further works were required.
The landlord’s records show it raised works on 9 June 2023 to take place on 14 June 2023. Although its repair records show it completed works that day, it has not provided any evidence of the works taking place. Therefore, from the evidence we have seen it is unclear either that works did take place or, if so, the extent of those works. Its records also show it raised follow on works the same day for 2 August 2023. But again, its records lacked any context or details of what works it raised.
The landlord appeared to rebook those works on 1 August 2023 for 10 August 2023. Again, there was no explanation why it rescheduled the works or, if the works did take place on 10 August 2023, the nature of any works carried out. This continued the landlord’s poor record keeping on this issue.
On 29 August 2023 the landlord noted the building was due for new windows and doors, but no future date was set, and it did not have the information verified. It asked for confirmation it had surveyed the building and agreed for future major works.
This request was in contradiction to the landlord’s stage 1 response which clearly stated the building was part of planned works and it had referred the works to the major works team.
In an update to the resident and this Service on 29 August 2023, the landlord stated its records showed it had completed draught insulation work to his windows and doors. It also said it was waiting for confirmation the windows and doors in the building were subject to its future major work programme.
Although the landlord stated its records showed it had completed draught insulation works, it did not provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman. The resident responded to this Service about the landlord’s update. He said he reported the issues over 2 years ago, its supervisor visited and said it would not repair, or replace, due to planned maintenance. He added that while the supervisor inspected, he agreed that draught proofing was needed and arranged for a carpenter to attend. Many weeks later a carpenter arrived, fitted a draught excluder to the front door, half the rear door, and 1 window inside. The carpenter then ran out of materials and left. They did not repair any other windows, and no works took place to repair or replace window handles. After he contacted it, another carpenter arrived after many weeks. They finished the back door and advised him they could not do the outside as that required 2 people. They did not do anything regarding the rest of the windows. He said it raised further appointments but cancelled them. He said the front door remained loose at the bottom.
The landlord acknowledged the resident remained dissatisfied with its handling of his complaint and informed him it had escalated it to stage 2 on 30 August 2023. It noted he acknowledged it was looking to replace all windows at the block. It repeated that it would confirm a date once it had one. It also noted he said the works to draught proof and repair the windows as an interim measure had taken an extremely long time and remained incomplete.
On 5 September 2023 the landlord noted works to the block would start in January 2024 and run into the next financial year. A programme and full resident consultation would be issued and arranged over the next few months. There was however no evidence of any communication to the resident regarding this.
The landlord’s records noted on 3 and 5 October 2023 that it had tried to contact the resident but was unable to make contact and had closed a job down. Again, its records are not clear on what jobs it was referring to.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 19 October 2023, it repeated the finding it made at stage 1. It noted there was an outstanding repair for his windows and its internal system showed its operatives had tried to contact him to get the follow-on works booked in due to the reported draught. It said if he still wanted the repair, to contact it. It had contacted its planning and systems team who confirmed the works for the windows in the block would begin in January 2024 and would run into the next financial year. It would issue a programme and undertake full resident consultation within the next few months.
The landlord has not provided evidence of works taking place despite its assurance of them beginning in January 2024. It has also not provided evidence it communicated any further updates to the resident or sought to further establish any repairs required while it was waiting to begin the major works.
Overall, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Its repairs policy confirms it is responsible for windows and external doors at the resident’s property. The policy states it aims to complete repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. We acknowledge that the evidence provided indicates the resident may have been reporting the windows and doors for a longer period than covered in this investigation. However, the time taken for it to complete any repairs for the period covered in this investigation went significantly beyond the timescales of its repairs policy.
During this time, the landlord has not evidenced the extent of the investigation it undertook and the findings it made. It has not evidenced the type of works it had conducted and if the windows and doors required any repairs to ensure they were safe and functioning until the planned works would take place. It has failed to evidence it was appropriately communicating with the resident and keeping him updated with any progress regarding the window replacements. Although it stated to him replacement works would begin in January 2024, they did not, and as of the time of this investigation there is no evidence of works beginning. This is a significant delay and far beyond the timescales it provided to him. This was maladministration by the landlord.
The landlord responded to multiple issues in the resident’s complaint. It did not make it clear in its offer of compensation what amount it had offered specifically for its handling of the repairs. We have considered its offer for time and effort and for miscommunication to be related to the repairs. In total this amounted to £120. While it was appropriate it recognised its failings, the offer made was not sufficient for the failures identified and the timescales involved. We have therefore ordered the landlord pays an additional £130 compensation to him. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour

The first evidence provided to the Ombudsman relating to anti-social behaviour (ASB) was the resident’s complaint made on 16 May 2023. We however acknowledge the resident states he had been reporting the issues for a significant period before making the complaint.
In his complaint the resident said:
1. He had reported a neighbour for using a washing machine after 11pm into the early hours causing a nuisance to him. He said the landlord gave him advice to record the noise via its noise app. He received the same advice when he reported use of the bin chute between 11pm and 2am. He said all recordings were still pending. He said its officer told him they did not know how to use the app and listen to the recordings so to use a diary sheet. He felt the recordings he made through the app were a waste of time and effort.
2. He had reported issues via email regarding disturbances, with residents’ and visitors’ children playing football in the communal garden, causing damage, and leaving items and rubbish in the communal garden. Those issues were still on going.
3. He reported dogs were being allowed to use the communal garden, off lead, this included visitors’ and residents’ dogs. There was messing/fouling on the ground.
4. Communal areas were used without notice, or information given to residents, stopping him and other residents from using the areas.
The landlord has provided no evidence of investigating the concerns he raised and has provided no evidence regarding any cases it may have raised prior to him making his complaint.
In its stage 1 response on 30 May 2023, the landlord said it apologised if he felt it was not supporting him during the management of his ASB case. It provided the following response about the ASB issues he raised in his complaint:
1. It noted his initial contact with it was on 6 January 2023 to inform it of a concern involving his neighbour using their washing machine and the bin chute at unsocial hours. It apologised for a lack of communication in providing him with updates. It had opened an ASB case to investigate his concerns. It had contacted his neighbour to discuss his reports. It gave them advice in line with day to day living noises and the appropriate time to use the washing machine and bin chute without causing disturbances to other residents within the block. As it had received further noise nuisance incidents regarding the matter, it would be recontacting his neighbour to discuss the ongoing issue. It asked him to resubmit any new recordings via the noise app for it to review in line with its ASB policy and said it might take appropriate tenancy actions.
2. It had contacted the neighbour involved regarding the dog fouling and issued a warning in line with its ASB policy. It would monitor the situation and take appropriate actions if there was evidence of a further breach.
3. It had sent out block letters to all residents reminding them of the use of internal communal access and for adults to always supervise children. There were “No Ball Games” signs in the communal courtyard and it had sent block letters reminding residents of that.
4. The communal hall was available on request and any residents using the hall, required its permission. For any future requests, once it granted permission it would place a notice on the notice board to ensure all residents were aware.
The resident responded the same day and said he was not happy with the landlord’s response. He said despite it saying it issued letters, the issues with children playing football had carried on. As of that date he had received no letters. He added the notice board was in an area used most of the time by children, playing football, or cycling, and was not in a good place. The communal area was unsafe due to the way the area was being used. There was a chance of being hit by balls and cycles, toys, and rubbish were left everywhere.
On 1 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said for the previous 4 days, the issues regarding football, cycles, and the communal garden had continued. This caused abuse, nuisance, and disruption. He added that its letters failed to do anything. He said all doors were open into the communal garden from the communal corridors. Locks were broken and the main arch door unlocked. He said anyone could walk in or out and the doors needed securing. There is no evidence it responded to his contact.
The resident made further reports of ASB to the landlord regarding the same issues with particular focus on children playing football, dogs roaming freely and barking, and unsecured communal areas at least on 4, 6, 21 and 24 June 2023. There is no evidence it responded to him during this time. In his email on 24 June 2023, he raised that there was a smell of drugs from another resident nearby. In an email of 26 June 2023, he informed it a ball went into his garden scaring his kitten and damaging an ornament. In each of his emails he made it clear he wanted it to act and any action it had previously taken was ineffective.
On 29 July 2023 the resident reported a visitor to the building was allowing a dog to roam free within the communal garden and off lead. He referred to its pets policy 2021 regarding the need for pets to be kept under proper control and not cause a nuisance to other households, including dogs being kept on a lead in communal areas.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 August 2023. It said several residents it called about his allegation confirmed they saw the owner and the dog in the park, but no one saw or heard any nuisance. Regarding his query about drugs in its property, its policy stated it would collaborate closely with police as that was a criminal matter. When there are reports of drug activities happening in its estates, it asks the person reporting it to provide a police reference number, including the officer’s name or details of the safer neighbourhood team. It said it did not respond to his email about drugs because he failed to provide that information.
Although the landlord’s policy may set out the criteria for the actions it would take, it would be unreasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to know and understand that policy. If it required more information from him, it should have communicated that at the earliest opportunity for him to consider. By its own admission, it failed to respond to his emails regarding drug use and that was not appropriate.
On 29 August 2023 the landlord provided an update to the resident and the Ombudsman in relation to the ASB. It said its housing management team confirmed there was insufficient evidence to take tenancy enforcement action against other residents in the block. In response the next day the resident indicated many of the issues had calmed down.
In the stage 2 response on 19 October 2023, the landlord did not provide any further response to the resident’s reports of ASB concerning noise or use of the communal areas. However, it did provide the following responses as summarised below:
1. It apologised that he felt it had not taken seriously his reports of ASB consisting of a strong smell of drugs involving a neighbouring property. It advised it took all reports of ASB seriously and it would continue to collaborate with partner agencies in tackling and preventing ASB within the local area. It noted it would continue to maintain regular contact with him to investigate the reports of ASB and it had advised him to contact the police to report any suspicious activities regarding drugs taking place.
2. It said it continued to make site visits to monitor ASB and had sent a letter to all residents regarding its pet policy. This was to ensure all residents and visitors adhered to the policy.
Overall, it is clear the resident had reported many types of ASB including noise, children playing in incorrect areas, dog fouling and drug use. The landlord’s response was that it followed its ASB policy and took appropriate action. Many of the landlord’s actions, including discussing the ASB reports with relevant neighbours, sending block letters and agreeing to post notices about the use of the communal hall were appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
However, the landlords ASB policy states the landlord will conduct actions including assessing the case and assigning a priority, keep in regular contact with a resident, agree an action plan and provide advice and support. It has not provided any evidence it conducted those actions including any action plans it agreed with him. Its evidence does not confirm if or when it closed any open cases and the outcomes of those cases. In the absence of such information the Ombudsman cannot conclude the landlord followed its ASB policy following the various reports of ASB made by the resident. This amounted to service failure.
We have considered the landlord’s offer of £120 compensation for distress and inconvenience to be for its handling of the ASB reports. The offer of compensation it offered is within the range of awards we would order for the failings identified in this report. The landlord therefore offered reasonable redress to the resident for its service failures.

The landlord’s handling of a compensation payment for a previous repair

The first reference to the compensation for boiler works was in the resident’s complaint of 16 May 2023. In the complaint he said between 11 January 2023 and 24 February 2023, his heating, boiler and electrics had a problem which the landlord repaired after many visits. It had written to him and told him he would receive compensation which he never received.
The landlord’s records show on the same day it noted it had not awarded compensation for boiler outages. It noted a stage 1 reply it had sent saying as there were outstanding repairs on his complaint, the complaint would remain open until completed. It would then provide compensation to him. It noted an internal request that someone contact the resident and offer compensation.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of its attempts to contact the resident regarding the compensation. It also did not refer to it in its stage 1 response of 30 May 2023.
In an update to the Ombudsman and resident on 29 August 2023, the landlord said it had received no response from the resident when it originally contacted him regarding the compensation. The next day, the resident asked the landlord to advise him of what contact it had attempted as he strongly denied he had not responded. There is no evidence it responded to that request.
The landlord provided no evidence of the attempts it made in contacting the resident regarding compensation. The lack of evidence demonstrating its attempts meant the Ombudsman cannot conclude its statement regarding contact to be accurate.
In its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023, the landlord said that in January 2023, it had advised him that, as there were outstanding repairs to his boiler, it would contact him following completion of works to award compensation. It said it had tried to call him on 14 February 2023 to advise on compensation but received no answer. It noted as part of his complaint he raised concerns he had not yet received compensation for the delay to repair his boiler. It advised it awarded compensation for £228 via bank transfer. The landlord did not clarify in its response when it agreed that payment or paid it to him.
Overall, the landlord has failed to evidence it handled the award of compensation correctly. It is clear the issue occurred between January and February 2023. Although it has stated it tried to offer compensation to the resident, it has failed to evidence when it did so. This has meant the Ombudsman is unable to determine it took all appropriate steps within a reasonable timescale to ensure it provided the compensation to him. It was not until the stage 2 response of 19 October 2023 that it evidenced the award of compensation. However, even within the stage 2 response it failed to evidence when it made the offer.
The landlords failure to evidence that it offered the award of compensation at the appropriate time or took reasonable steps to ensure it provided the compensation to the resident was service failure. We have ordered that the landlord pay the resident £50 for the time and trouble he likely incurred as a result of its handling of the compensation payment. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a service failure that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident made his complaint on 16 May 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 May 2023. This was within the 10 working days timescales of its complaint policy.
The resident responded to the stage 1 response the next day and stated he was not happy or satisfied with its response. He wanted to continue to the next stage. There is no evidence the landlord considered this to be an escalation request or attempted to confirm with him if he wanted to escalate the complaint.
On 17 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update on his stage 1 complaint. He stated again he did not agree and wanted the complaint escalated. This was another opportunity for it to escalate the complaint. Again, there was no evidence it responded to him.
Following the Ombudsman contacting the landlord, it confirmed escalation of the complaint on 30 August 2023 and stated it stage 2 response would be issued within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 September 2023 and said he had not yet received the stage 2 response. He recontacted it again on 4 October 2023. There is no evidence it responded to him at either time.
After the resident contacted the landlord again on 12 October 2023, it responded the same day. It said it would issue its response to him by 19 October 2023. It provided no explanation for the delay or its lack of responses to him to that point.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 19 October 2023. The stage 2 response was issued 37 working days after it confirmed it had escalated the complaint. And 101 working days after the resident initially escalated his complaint. This was significantly beyond its complaint policy timescale of 20 working days.
The landlords handling of the complaint amounted to maladministration. It offered £30 compensation for the delays in its complaint handling. The offer of compensation was not proportionate to the significant delay and likely distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident especially given the issues reported in his complaint were ongoing.
The landlord upheld the complaint at stage 2. It stated it offered the resident compensation totalling £230. On review of the compensation offered, it offered £30 for the delay issuing the stage 2 response, £70 for time and effort, £120 for distress and inconvenience and £50 for poor communication. This meant the total offer was in fact £270. The landlord had incorrectly calculated the total offered. The resident’s complaint had multiple complaints to which it was responding. It failed to allocate any specific amounts to specific elements of his complaint.
There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £70 compensation. This brings the amount within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s windows and doors.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of a compensation payment to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of repairs to windows and doors in the resident’s property. This includes the £120 it offered in its complaint responses for time and effort and for miscommunication if it has not already done so.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble likely caused by its handling of the payment of compensation to the resident.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This includes the £30 it offered in its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
  4. The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies owed by the resident to the landlord.
3. Contact the resident and provide him with an update of the status of major works for the windows and door. This must include a timetable for the replacement works to take place.
4. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the current state of the windows and doors to establish if interim repairs are required.
5. If interim repairs are required, within 2 weeks of the inspection provide the resident and this Service with a written timetable for those works.
The landlord must provide evidence to this Service of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

Pay the resident the £120 it offered in its complaint responses for distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.
Contact the resident and establish if he is currently experiencing any ASB and if so, open a new case and investigate in accordance with its ASB policy.