London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202223696)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223696

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 September 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that he should have access to electricity from the building’s solar panels.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant with the landlord. He lives in a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat and has lived there since 15 July 2019. The landlord has noted that the resident requires physical support.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 December 2022 to raise a formal complaint. The resident was disappointed that he had no access to his flat due to an injury from the staircase that he suffered, he had overspent on gas following wrong advice from the gas safety checks, and requested compensation for overspending on electricity has he had no access to free electricity from the block’s solar panels.
5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 28 December 2022. In its response it advised that:
   1. it had not been made aware of any issues with the communal stairs. If he suffered an injury, this would be handled outside the complaint process. It provided information on how he could submit his claim
   2. it had not received any further information about his complaint regarding his gas bills. It requested more information as to why he believed the landlord was liable for extra costs of his gas bills
   3. the solar panels did not provide electricity to individual residents. The generated electricity was used for the communal areas of the building such as the communal lighting. This in turn benefitted residents by way of reduced communal services costs
   4. it awarded the resident £50 compensation for a delay in responding to the complaint and this was paid to his rent account
6. On 30 November 2023, we asked the landlord to provide all stage 1 and stage 2 responses it had issued to the resident. The landlord escalated the complaint on 1 December 2023 following this contact. It acknowledged this with the resident that day, confirming the initial complaint.
7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 21 December 2023. In its response, the landlord advised the following:
   1. any personal injury claims are handled outside the complaint process and provided a contact email address
   2. it had not received any further information to support the resident’s claim for overspending on his gas bills, therefore it was unable to offer a resolution and invited him to provide evidence so it could investigate
   3. as per its stage 1 response, the solar panels generated electricity for the communal areas of the building. Therefore, they were not designed to benefit residents and it rejected his claim for compensation
   4. it awarded the resident £200 compensation in acknowledgement of:
      1. the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint
      2. time and effort of the resident in chasing the landlord
8. The resident contacted our service on 16 January 2024. He alleged he suffered an injury on his staircase, had overspent on his gas utility bills and he had no access to free energy by the solar panels on his block. He wanted the compensation to be reviewed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. Whilst we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages.
10. In his initial complaint to the landlord, the resident complained that he had suffered an injury because of the staircase in the property. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if he wishes to pursue this option.
11. The resident raised a formal complaint on 7 December 2022. He explained he was overspending for his gas bills without proper advice from the gas safety surveys. On 9 December 2022, the landlord asked for further information about his claim including why and how he held the landlord liable for the energy usage for gas. The resident replied to the landlord on 9 December 2023 and explained that “customers here [were] complaining about no money energy bills and no money for food.” The landlord replied that day explaining that it had a tenancy sustainment team who would be able to advise and assist with financial matters and that a member of this team would contact the resident. This was a reasonable response.
12. As the resident did not provide any further information regarding the claim, the landlord responded at stage 1 on 21 December 2022 advising it had previously asked the resident for further information with regards to the claim but this was not received. Therefore the landlord was unable to respond to this point. Following the stage 1 response, the resident provided further insight with regards to his complaint in emails to the landlord, referencing unsatisfactory EPC ratings being the cause. The landlord raised a new stage 1 complaint to respond to this. We are assessing this matter separately under case reference 202333137 therefore we will not assess it in this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns he should have access to electricity from the building’s solar panels.

13. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for paying utility charges.
14. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 December 2022 advising he was disappointed that he had no access to free electricity from the solar panels on the block. He wanted to get compensation for this. There is no evidence that the resident brought this issue to the landlord prior to this. The landlord treated this as a complaint which was appropriate.
15. In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised the resident that no residents in his block benefitted from the solar panels directly. It explained that electricity generated was used for communal areas of the building such as the communal lighting. Therefore, the panels reduced the running costs of the building by reducing financial contributions from residents through their communal services cost. Having reviewed the resident’s tenancy agreement, it does not detail that the resident would benefit directly from the solar panels. However the schedule does state that the communal electricity costs were part of the service charges. Therefore, this was a reasonable response from the landlord.
16. Following the stage 1 response, the resident emailed the landlord on several occasions. In this correspondence, the resident did not directly disagree with the findings provided by the landlord. On 6 January 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s contact to gain clarity on his request. It explained that if he was unhappy with the outcome, he could escalate his complaint to stage 2. This was reasonable of the landlord to help gain understanding of any outstanding issues.
17. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 1 December 2023 following contact from our service. The resident did not provide any evidence suggesting why he believed he was entitled to benefit directly from the solar panels. The landlord responded to the resident on 21 December 2023 confirming that its findings at stage 1 were correct. It did not change its decision.
18. In summary, we have not found a failure by the landlord in its response to this issue. The landlord clearly explained the purpose of the solar panels in its responses to the resident. This aligned with the information in the tenancy agreement stating the resident is responsible for his utility costs. Therefore, we have made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

19. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint handling procedure. Following a resident submitting a complaint, the landlord will:
    1. log and acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of receiving it
    2. respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging the complaint
    3. explain and write to a resident if it needs more time to reach a decision
    4. send a final written decision within 20 working days of any request to escalate a complaint to stage 2
    5. agree any extensions with the resident if more time is required to respond at stage 2
20. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will offer compensation to recognise the impact the service failure has had on a customer. It states that where customers have rent arrears, it will partly or fully offset a payment or award against the debt.
21. The resident submitted a complaint on 7 December 2022. In line with its policy, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 December 2022 which was appropriate. In its acknowledgement, the landlord asked for further information to help understand the resident’s complaint which was reasonable.
22. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 28 December 2022. This was not appropriate as this was 11 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. The landlord noted in its investigation notes that the decision was late “due to being missed” and a member of staff was “on leave and didn’t check”. This demonstrates poor complaint handling which was not appropriate.
23. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in replying to the resident’s complaint. It apologised and awarded the resident £50 which was appropriate.
24. Following the stage 1 response, the resident raised different issues that were not brought to the landlord during its investigation. There is evidence that the landlord tried to gain understanding of the issues the resident was telling them about. However, it was not clear what the resident was asking. On 6 January 2023, the landlord told the resident that if he remained unhappy with the stage 1 response, he could escalate his complaint to stage 2. This was reasonable of the landlord in providing this information and trying to gain an understanding of the resident’s requests.
25. There is no evidence that the resident requested a review of the complaint answered at stage 1. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 1 December 2023 following our involvement. In its acknowledgement to the resident, it confirmed the details of the complaint which was reasonable.
26. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 21 December 2023 which was within its timescales. This was an appropriate response in line with its complaints policy. In its response, it identified delays in its complaint handling and acknowledged the time and effort the resident spent emailing the landlord. It offered the resident £200 for the failings identified in its complaint handling. It was positive that the landlord identified that it could have handled this experience better. The offer is in line with our remedies guidance therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns that he should have access to electricity from the building’s solar panels.
28. In accordance with paragraph 53 b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

29. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £200 offered during the complaints process if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the complaint is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.