We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202325879)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325879

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 April 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 repairs to the resident’s driveway.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house with a driveway. The resident lives with her 3 children: 1 adult, 1 teenage and 1 younger child. Her 2 youngest children are disabled and have additional needs in terms of support, supervision and mobility. The resident’s tenancy began in 2011 when the property was owned by a different landlord. The current landlord took over in 2021.
  2. The previous landlord logged the need for repairs to the resident’s driveway in 2014, as the surface was “crumbling” and the foundation was “falling apart.” Repairs were not completed.
  3. On 10 September 2021 the landlord raised a job to repair the driveway, which it noted was uneven, had pot holes and sunken concrete. In November 2021 the landlord asked a contractor (contractor A) to carry out the repair, but this was not done. In April 2023 it appointed a different contractor (contractor B) to carry out the repair, but this was not done.
  4. On 12 April 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the driveway repairs. She said:
    1. She reported the need for driveway repairs on 10 September 2021, but the repairs had not yet been done.
    2. Her youngest child, who is disabled with mobility problems, had had several falls due to tripping on the uneven surface.
    3. She was unable to park on the driveway when it rained, due to flooding.
  5. On 13 April 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised that it had not yet carried out the repairs. It said it had asked contractor B to attend for an initial appointment on 5 May 2023. It offered £280 compensation.
  6. The 5 May 2023 appointment was initially cancelled and rebooked for 9 May 2023, but the contractor did not attend. The appointment was rebooked for 15 May 2023. It is unclear whether this went ahead. In June 2023 the landlord sought a different contractor as contractor B did not have the correct certification to carry out the work.
  7. On 1 August 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure, as the driveway had still not been repaired. The landlord had increased its offer of compensation to £880 and said contractor C would start the repair works on 5 August 2023. However, the resident wanted £10 per day compensation for 24 months when she said she was unable to use the driveway.
  8. Contractor C completed the driveway repairs on 23 August 2023.
  9. On 25 October 2023 the resident contacted this Service as she had not received a stage 2 response. She felt the landlord had been dismissive of the daily impact the poor condition of the driveway had had upon her and her children, especially in relation to her youngest child’s disability. She wanted an increased offer of compensation, taking into account the length of time she had reduced use of the driveway.
  10. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. In this the landlord:
    1. Apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family by the length of time it had taken for the driveway to be repaired.
    2. Apologised for the delay providing a stage 2 response.
    3. Said it would ask its surveyor to assess whether additional work was required due to rainwater pooling on the driveway.
    4. Said it could not compensate the resident for personal injury/damage to personal belongings, and advised her to claim on her home contents insurance, or its own insurance.
    5. Offered £2,700 compensation, £511.58 of which would be offset against rent arrears.
  11. The resident has confirmed that the landlord directly paid her £2,188.42 of the compensation, and that £511.58 was offset against rent arrears. However, she was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response and thought the landlord should offer more compensation in recognition of the impact of the delay repairing the driveway on her and her family.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. When a complaint is referred to the Ombudsman, we must carefully consider the scope of our investigation, both in terms of the complaint definition and the time period the investigation will cover. We must take into account what is fair in all the circumstances, whether the landlord has had an opportunity to investigate matters under its internal complaints procedure, whether events can be clearly recalled, and whether appropriate evidence will still be available to support our investigation.
  2. The resident and the landlord agree that the resident first reported the need for repairs to the driveway in 2014, and that this report was made to the previous landlord. The landlord’s records show it first logged the need for a repair to the driveway on 10 September 2021.
  3. The Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period. The landlord’s complaints policy current at the time of the resident’s complaint said it expected resident’s to bring complaints to it within 6 months of the matter occurring. However, it told the resident in its stage 1 response that it would investigate back 12 months under its complaints process.
  4. Taking into account the above, this investigation has focussed on the time period between April 2022 (12 months prior to the resident’s 12 April 2023 complaint) and 16 November 2023 (the date of the stage 2 response. Reference to events outside of this period is made for context only.
  5. Within her correspondence the resident has said that the length of time taken to repair the driveway had an effect on her and her family’s health, including her youngest child having tripped and fallen. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident and her family.
  6. The Scheme states that 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. For this reason the complaint definition does not include the standard of the repairs to the driveway, as this was not considered by the landlord at both stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process. Although the landlord makes reference to the standard of the repairs in its stage 2 response, because the resident raised this after it had already issued a stage 1 response, it should have dealt with this separately as a new complaint, as per the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Driveway repairs

  1. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior or the dwelling-house, keeping all fixtures and fittings for the supply of gas, electricity, heating and hot water in repair and in proper working order. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. 
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the pathways, steps, or other means of access it has provided, but excluding garden paths. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will “provide residents with a reliable, modern and effective repairs service that undertakes repairs for which we have a responsibility to a good standard in a reasonable timeframe.” It categorises repairs as either routine, which it will complete within an average of 25 calendar days, or emergency, which it will attend within 24 hours. The policy also says the landlord is responsible for repairing trip hazards in paths, paving and driveways providing access to the home.
  3. The records provided by the landlord show no actions between January 2022 and January 2023. On 23 January 2023 it invited contractors to tender for the work to repair the resident’s driveway, but a contractor was not appointed until April 2023, more than 2 months later (the records are unclear as to the exact date).
  4. While there is mention in the records of the quotations received as a result of the tender being too high, and a contractor not being suitable, the landlord has not provided an adequate explanation of why it took so long to appoint a contractor. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude the landlord was proactive in carrying out its responsibility to repair the driveway.
  5. The resident telephoned on 23 March and 27 March 2023 to request an update. There is no evidence that the landlord responded. This was poor communication on the part of the landlord and would have contributed to the resident’s view that it ignored her and was dismissive of her and her family’s needs. Considering the landlord’s communication with the resident about the driveway repairs as a whole, the records provided do not evidence the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to keep the resident updated.
  6. It was appropriate that the landlord’s stage 1 response, on 13 April 2023, acknowledged and apologised for the delay in progressing the repair. However, its subsequent handling of the matter continued to be poorly managed. The 5 May 2023 appointment with contractor B was rescheduled for 9 May 2023, but then contractor B did not then attend. The appointment was rebooked again, but the records are unclear about whether or not this appointment went ahead. In June 2023 the landlord sought a different contractor, as it had identified that contractor B did not have the correct certification to carry out the work. The landlord should have checked that the contractor had the correct certification before instructing them. In not doing so its lack of adequate oversight  caused unnecessary delay and frustration to the resident.
  7. The landlord invited contractors to tender for the work again in June 2023, but a contractor was not appointed until August 2023 (the records are unclear as to the exact date). The landlord has not provided an adequate explanation of why it took so long to appoint a contractor. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude the landlord was proactive in carrying out its responsibility to repair the driveway.
  8. It was appropriate that the landlord’s stage 2 response, on 16 November 2023, acknowledged and apologised for its delay in progressing the repair. However, the explanation given for what had gone wrong was unclear. The landlord said that after a new work order was raised on 9 September 2021, the works were not completed until 23 August 2023 “due to differences with our contractors.” No further explanation of this statement was provided, leaving the resident unclear on the reason it had taken so long for the driveway to be repaired.
  9. The landlord took 712 days from the point it logged the need to repair the driveway, to the repairs being completed by Contractor C on 23 August 2023. It therefore failed to repair the driveway within an acceptable timeframe. While there was an apparent need to procure a specialist contractor to deliver these repairs, the resident should have been advised early of likely delay and kept updated. However, in this case, the landlord did not do so, and its communication with the resident throughout was poor. It did not at any stage provide an adequate explanation of why the repair took so long.
  10. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint, and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  11. The nature and level of the failings by the landlord in this case would usually amount to a finding of maladministration. The Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance recommends compensation of between £600 and £1,000 for maladministration that had a significant impact on the resident, where the redress needed to put things right is substantial. The landlord offered the resident a total of £2,700 compensation at stage 2, broken down as follows:
    1. £1,040 in recognition of the resident’s distress.
    2. £1,040 in recognition of the resident’s inconvenience.
    3. £280 in recognition of the resident’s time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
    4. £280 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
    5. £60 in recognition of the landlord’s poor communication.
  12. The landlord directly paid £2,188.42 of the compensation to the resident, and £511.58 was offset against rent arrears. While it is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should not be offset against arrears, the landlord’s compensation policy allowed it to do this.
  13. The Ombudsman has noted that in her complaint correspondence, the resident asked the landlord to pay her £10 per day compensation for 24 months when she said she was unable to use the driveway. The resident has told this Service that, prior to the repair, she was unable to use the driveway when it rained, due to deep puddles. As there is no way of evidencing what proportion of the time the resident was unable to use the driveway, it has not been possible to calculate the appropriate compensation award in this way. However, the compensation paid by the landlord significantly exceeds the sums set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This demonstrates that the landlord took its failings and the resulting effect on the resident and her family seriously. The Ombudsman has, therefore, made a finding of reasonable redress and has made no orders on this part of the complaint.
  14. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of repairs to the driveway, or impact on the resident and her family was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord, which it has acknowledged, remedied and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure said it would acknowledge complaints at stage 2 the following working day, and provide a full response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The procedure said the stage 1 handler would acknowledge a request to escalate the complaint on the same working day. The stage 2 handler would acknowledge the escalation of the complaint within a further 2 working days. A stage 2 response would then be provided within 20 days from the request to escalate.
  2. The procedure said that if a response could not provided within 20 working days, an explanation and extended response date must be provided to the resident in writing. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason, and agreement of the resident.
  3. The landlord acknowledged and responded in full to the resident’s 12 April 2023 complaint on 13 April 2023, the following working day. This was appropriate. However, while the stage 1 officer acknowledged the 1 August 2023 request to escalate the complaint on the same working day, the stage 2 officer did not acknowledge this until 26 October 2023, 62 working days later. This was after the resident had contacted this Service for assistance. Although the stage 1 officer had informed the resident on 1 August 2023 that there was a backlog of stage 2 complaints, and they were unable to advise when a stage 2 officer would be allocated, the Ombudsman expects landlords to have sufficient staff in place to deal with the volume of complaints received.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023, 77 working days after the request to escalate. Although this was before the target response date given within the stage 2 acknowledgement, this date was far beyond the time limits set out within the landlord’s procedure, and had not been agreed with the resident. This was very poor complaint handling. It was appropriate, however, that the landlord apologised for poor complaint handling within the stage 2 response.
  5. As a result of the landlord’s poor complaint handling, the resident felt ignored and dismissed, and this compounded the damage to the landlord/tenant relationship. The nature and level of the complaint handling failings in this case would usually amount to a finding of maladministration. The Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance recommends compensation of between £100 and £600 for maladministration which adversely affected the resident, but had no permanent impact. The landlord awarded the resident £560 compensation for its poor complaint handling at stage 2. The landlord has therefore made appropriate and proportionate redress and the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress and has made no orders on this part of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the driveway.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord inspect the resident’s driveway during or immediately after heavy rainfall to ascertain whether further works are needed to ensure adequate drainage.
  2. The landlord should consider the efficacy of the oversight /processes it uses, and availability of a suitable range of contractors, for the delivery of non-standard works.
  3. The landlord should consider possible additional measures to ensure those involved in its complaint management and handling deliver responses within its own and the Code target timescales.
  4. The landlord should consider updating its repairs policy to include a category for non-standard repairs.