London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202347855)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347855

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports to repair the balcony.
2. reports of a pest infestation.
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated 3 April 2012. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a third floor, 3-bedroom flat with their 3 sons.
The resident reported to the landlord on 25 November 2022 that wood had fallen from the balcony above. The same day the landlord recommended not to use the balcony, that wood falling had caused a “near miss”, and that it would repair the balcony. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 18 January 2023. The resident continued to chase the landlord about the repair.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 21 November 2023 that the balcony repair was outstanding and the landlord had not considered the seriousness of the problem. They said that in November 2022 their son was hit by a piece of falling wood from the balcony above.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 November 2023. It said in November 2022 it recommended the resident did not use the balcony. It approved the balcony repair in July 2023 which was then referred to its major works team. It said it would keep the resident updated.
The resident escalated the complaint on 23 November 2023. They explained their son was previously hit by a piece of wood and the landlord had not taken accountability. They said they wanted the balcony repaired, compensation for the inadequate service, loss of outdoor space, for the time involved and for the stress caused to them.
The resident chased the landlord for a stage 2 response on 20, 21 and 27 February 2024. The landlord issued a further stage 1 response to the resident on 15 March 2024. It said the balcony repair was delayed as it had to consider the Building Safety Act 2022 due to the height of the building and that the repair was scheduled as part of its planned programme of works repairs in 2024/2025. It offered £100 for the distress and inconvenience, and £50 to recognise its complaint handling.
The resident reported a bird infestation on the balcony on 19 March 2024. On this date they also escalated the complaint. They said the compensation was not enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused for:
1. the unsafe balcony and hurt caused to their son from the falling wood.
2. not being able to use the balcony for over a year.
3. having to chase the landlord about the repair.
4. having no response to the complaint escalation.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 24 April 2024. It apologised for its poor service and distress and inconvenience caused. It said its major works team would be in touch to confirm when the balcony would be repaired and offered to complete a health and safety report on behalf of their son. It said it had raised a pest inspection of the property. It offered:
1. £50 for its poor communication.
2. £823 for the loss of outdoor space.
3. £240 for the complaint handling delay.
4. to refer the resident to their home contents insurance for damaged items and set out contact for its insurance team where the resident feels the damage and injury was caused by the landlord’s action or inaction.
The resident referred the complaint to us in March 2024 and confirmed to us in September 2025 that the issues were ongoing. They said they were able to remove some of the pests due to their own actions and was able to resolve the damage to their furniture. They want the balcony fixed and compensation as they were unable to use their outdoor space, had to take time off work, their son was hurt by falling wood, and for the time the issue has been ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident referred to the damage the falling wood from the balcony had on their son. We are unable to find if a landlord’s actions or inaction impacted someone’s health. These matters are likely better suited for a court, or a personal injury or insurance claim. Should the resident want to pursue this, they can seek independent advice. However, where we have identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Reports to repair the balcony

On 25 November 2022 the resident reported that wood had fallen from the balcony above theirs, posed a risk of injury to their soon, and that it needed to be repaired.
The tenancy agreement says it considers an emergency as rotten timber flooring. The landlord’s repair policy says:
1. it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home, including the repair of balconies.
2. for emergency repairs it will make the situation safe within 24 hours and return to complete any outstanding work.
The landlord’s website at the time says it had a major works programme to carry out repairs over 15 years for external repairs, cyclical decorations, heating systems, and lifts. It said once contracts had been agreed, it would write to residents confirming the works to be completed and when.
On 25 November 2022 the landlord sent a confirmation letter to the resident about their report to repair the balcony. A contractor completed a risk assessment of the balcony on the same day, asked the resident not to use it as it was unsafe, and recorded a “near miss” due to falling wood. The contractor recommended a further inspection of the building’s balconies. It was appropriate and in line with the tenancy agreement and the repair policy to make the situation safe.
On 18 January 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update. They reported further wood had fallen from the balcony above and the wood from their balcony was breaking away too. There is no evidence the landlord had repaired the balcony since it was first reported in November 2022. There’s also no evidence the landlord inspected the property within 24 hours of the resident updating the landlord about further safety issues with the balcony. This was inappropriate and not in line with the tenancy agreement and repair policy.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs outlines good practice. It says that landlords should agree actions and timescales for responding in line with their policies and obligations and confirm these in writing. Landlords should inform residents of any delays and explain why these are necessary.
The landlord internally noted an inspection took place of the balcony on 26 January 2023. However, there is no further information about this, which is a shortfall of its record keeping. The landlord’s inaction to set out an action plan following the inspection left the household without safe access to their balcony and assurance as to when the repairs would be completed. This was unreasonable.
On 6 March 2023 the landlord asked a contractor to make the resident’s balcony safe and replace the balcony bearers, joists, and decking. There is no evidence of this and whether the balcony was made safe at that time. The lack of oversight to ensure the balcony was made safe was inappropriate.
The resident chased the landlord for an update about the repairs on 4 April 2023. The landlord spoke with the contractor who were confused as to what repair needed to be completed. The landlord clarified that the balcony above the resident, as well as their own balcony, needed to be repaired. It was reasonable to clarify the repair with the contractor, and to update the resident. However, this happened after the resident prompted the landlord. The lack of proactive updates was unreasonable.
The landlord’s lack of oversight with the contractor delayed repairs and left the resident without access to the outdoor space and continued to expose them to health and safety concerns. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
On 21 April 2023 a contractor provided a quote to the landlord to replace 2 sets of decking, bearers and joists for the resident’s balcony and the balcony above.
In May and September 2023, the landlord recognised it had a quote to repair the resident’s balcony and the balcony above theirs. However, it had also been recommended that all the building’s balconies needed to be inspected and possibly repaired. There is no evidence the landlord had updated the resident about this and why the repairs were delayed. This was unreasonable.
On 21 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that the balcony repairs were outstanding. The next day the landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response that it had referred the balcony repair to its major works team. It had not provided the resident an action plan, referred to timescales set out within its repair policy, or explained whether the repairs were part of its planned programme of works, to assure the resident of when it intended for the repair to be completed. This was unreasonable.
On 23 November 2023 the resident explained to the landlord that wood had fallen onto their son’s head the year before in November 2022. They said the landlord had not taken accountability.
The resident chased the landlord about the repairs on 3 occasions in February 2024. The landlord explained to the resident on 15 March 2024 that the repair was with its major works team due to the risk involved as it was a high-rise balcony. It said it may take a few months for it to plan, document, and sign off the repairs needed to the balconies.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 April 2024, it upheld the complaint and apologised to the resident for its poor service. It:
1. offered £50 for its poor communication.
2. offered £823 for the loss of outdoor space.
3. offered to complete a health and safety report for the resident’s son’s injury and set out its insurer’s details.
4. said the repairs would be completed by its major works team who would contact the resident about when it would complete work to their balcony.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether its offer of redress and commitments to remedy issues, have been in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord accepted some of its failings. However, it did not recognise that it had not:
1. risk assessed the balcony to ensure it was safe after the resident reported further issues with wood breaking away.
2. proactively updated the resident about the delays to the balcony repair, and it had not set out an action plan as to when it would be completed.
3. completed repairs to the balcony joists, bearers, and decking.
4. set out its learnings from the failures it had identified.
Since that time the landlord said it made the balcony safe on 4 September 2024. However, the resident said the follow-up balcony repairs have not been completed. There is no evidence the major works team completed repairs or that the landlord set out an action plan as to when the repairs would be completed.
This is not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles as the issue remains outstanding and the landlord had not considered lessons it had learnt to prevent this happening again. Considering this, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
The landlord set out compensation for the loss of use of the balcony and for its poor communication. However, it had not set out compensation for the failures listed above. Considering the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to reoffer the resident the £823 and £50 set out in its complaint response as well as an additional £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to them.
The landlord should set out to the resident details of its liability insurance, should the resident want to consider a claim for wood falling onto their son. It should also inspect the balcony to determine what repairs are needed and set out an action plan as to when this will be completed. If the repair is a part of the landlord’s wider programme of works, it should set out the timeframe when it expects to reach the resident’s balcony for repairs.
It is recommended that the landlord considers further compensation, in line with its compensation policy, for the delay to repair the balcony and loss of outdoor space since it sent its stage 2 response, up until the time the balcony is repaired.

Reports of a pest infestation

The resident reported a bird infestation on their balcony on 19 March 2024.
The landlord’s pest policy and repair policy says it is responsible for pests. Its repair policy says it will complete routine day to day repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
There is no evidence the landlord inspected the pests in attempt to remedy the issue within the time set out in its repair policy. This was inappropriate.
The landlord said in its complaint response on 24 April 2024 that it had arranged for the pests to be inspected. It had not explained the delay to inspect the issue was due to the balcony being unsafe.
The landlord had not explained lessons learnt to minimise delay to inspect pests in the future, had not set out why there had been a delay, and there is no evidence it had since completed a pest inspection. This is not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. Considering this, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
Considering the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance, it should pay the resident £100. It should also arrange a pest inspection and if it’s determined there are actions needed to remedy the issue, it should set these out in an action plan.

Associated complaint

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receiving it and respond to the complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint.
2. if the resident escalates the complaint to stage 2, the landlord should provide its response within 20 working days of the escalation.
  1. if the landlord needs an extension, it should communicate the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s complaint policy is aligned with the Code.
The resident raised their complaint to the landlord on 21 November 2023, and the landlord provided its stage 1 response the next day on 22 November 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the Code and its complaint policy.
The resident escalated the complaint on 23 November 2023. They chased the landlord for a response in February 2024. The landlord did not provide a stage 2 response. Instead, it provided a stage 1 response on 15 March 2024. This was inappropriate and delayed the complaint response for the resident.
The resident escalated the complaint again on 19 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 22 April 2024 and told the resident it would provide a response by 25 April 2024. It provided its stage 2 response on 24 April 2024. This was appropriate and in line with the Code and its complaint policy.
We would have found maladministration but for the landlord’s complaint response, where it acknowledged the complaint handling delay and offered £240 to the resident. The compensation is reasonable, and in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
However, the landlord had not set out how it had learnt from the complaint handling delay to prevent it happening again in the future. This is not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. It is a minor failing in putting things right for the resident. Considering this, we find service failure.
Taking account for the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance, the landlord should reoffer the resident £240 for the delay in its complaint handling. It should also set out how it has learnt from this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports to repair the balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports to remedy the pest investigation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. liaise with the superior landlord for a copy of its inspection report of the balcony and share a copy with both the resident and us.
  1. use the report to set out within 4 weeks of receiving it, an action plan for the resident as to what repairs are required, who is responsible for undertaking those repairs and when it expects those repairs to be completed in line with its repairs policy.
2. within 4 weeks of the balcony being made safe, assess for ongoing pigeon infestation and confirm with the resident how it will be addressed in line with its pest policy.
3. write to the resident and:
  1. provide details of its liability insurance.
  2. apologise for the failures identified in this report and how it will prevent these happening again in the future.
4. pay compensation to the resident of £1,413, broken down as:
  1. £823 for the distress and inconvenience caused for the loss of outdoor space. It can deduct this from the total if it has evidenced this had already been paid to the resident.
  2. £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the failures identified in regard to the debris from the balcony risking injury. It can deduct the £50 offered in its complaint responses from the total, if it has evidenced this had already been paid to the resident.
  3. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the failures identified in regard to pests.
  4. £240 it offered in its complaint responses for the distress and inconvenience caused due to its complaint handling. It can deduct this from the total if its evidenced this had already been paid to the resident.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord considers further compensation, in line with its compensation policy, for the delay to repair the balcony and loss of outdoor space since it sent its stage 2 response, up until the time the balcony is repaired.