London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202345851)

Decision
Case ID	202345851
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

1. The resident raised complaints with the landlord about the general cleaning and maintenance of the external communal areas and bin stores over a long period of time. She told the landlord that residents were living in poor conditions as it was difficult to dispose of rubbish due to overfilled bins and rubbish on the bin store floors. The resident lives in a property close to one of the bin stores. She says she can see the build-up of rubbish from her kitchen window and she is affected by the smell. She said the stress of the situation had affected her mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns raised about the cleaning and maintenance of the external communal areas and bin stores.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns raised about the cleaning and maintenance of the external communal areas and bin stores.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to concerns raised about the cleaning and maintenance of the external communal areas and bin stores

5. The landlord’s management of the external cleaning contract was poor and it did not act in line with its estate management policy. Its communication with the resident was poor at times and there was no meaningful resolution to the complaint as the issues continued.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not log the resident’s complaint until we asked it to, despite her making requests on 4 separate occasions. There was also a delay in it acknowledging the stage 2 complaint. The landlord offered some compensation but this was not proportionate to the impact of its complaint handling failings.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 05 January 2026
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident: £375 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £200 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to concerns raised about the cleaning and maintenance of the external communal areas and bin stores. £150 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £80 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 05 January 2026
3	Order   The landlord must confirm in writing to both the resident and us when/how often the cleaners are contracted to attend the estate to carry out specific duties such as litter picking, rubbish removal, bin store servicing, and cleaning.   The landlord must also confirm the frequency of the landlord’s estate inspections and provide the resident with the contractor attendance records it promised in its stage 1 response. If the records are not available, the landlord must provide a full explanation why.	No later than 05 January 2026
3	Order   The landlord must put in place a proactive plan of action to ensure it manages the build-up of rubbish within the bin stores and external areas. The landlord must provide a copy of the plan to both the resident and this service.	No later than 14 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 July 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint about the poor condition of the bin stores. She said residents were unable to access the bin stores to dispose of rubbish.
4 August 2023	The resident contacted the landlord about the bin stores and communal areas. She asked the landlord to confirm that it had logged her complaint at stage 1.
18 October 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint about the maintenance and cleaning of the external areas of the estate. She said she had made numerous complaints to the landlord about the same issue. She said it was difficult to dispose of rubbish as the bin store entrance was blocked by an overfilled bin.
29 February 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as it had failed to respond at stage 1.
12 March 2024	The resident contacted us as she had not received a response from the landlord. We wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to check whether the resident had raised a complaint prior to 29 February 2024. We also asked it to log and acknowledge the complaint and provide a response by 21 March 2024. The landlord logged the complaint the following day.
26 March 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response. It said: it would only investigate issues 6 months prior to the resident’s complaint its contractors attended weekly in conjunction with the overall block cleaning and it had checked its internal system and it could not see any issues with the cleanliness of the bin stores the neighbourhood housing lead (NHL) had proactively addressed the issue of unclean bin stores by discussing it with the cleaning contractors and arranging to meet them on site the bin store was usually pressure washed twice a year. It was done on 23 August 2023 and 21 February 2024 a new cleaning contractor would be in place from 1 April 2024. This meant bins would be cleaned every 6 months going forward, and bin stores would be serviced weekly it was waiting for the contractor’s attendance records, which it would send to the resident by email when it received them. It expected that it could take some time as the contract was about to end it offered the resident £200 compensation. This was made up of £40 for distress, £120 for inconvenience, and £40 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved
4 April 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she said the issues remained unresolved. She said the landlord expected her to pay a service charge for services she did not think it was providing. She said the condition of the bin stores encouraged fly tipping and vermin, the bin store lock was faulty and had been for many years, and the large bins were left outside after the weekly refuse collection due to the amount of rubbish left in the bin store. She asked for information relating to the cleaning schedule and visit logs. She also challenged the landlord’s decision to only investigate the last 6 months.
24 May 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It repeated its response at stage 1 and also said: it had seen the resident’s photograph dated 7 May 2024 and the bins looked in good condition. It would, however, feedback to the contractor that it had left some rubbish on the floor. fly tipping would not be the cleaner’s responsibility to dispose of. This would need reporting to the NHL or local council it found no issues with the cleaning contractors it acknowledged the delay at stage 2 and offered an additional £80 for the delay and time and effort
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said she wanted a full investigation back to 2022, the issues resolved, the landlord to provide the requested information, a refund of service charges, and additional compensation.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to concerns raised about the cleaning and maintenance of the external communal areas and bin stores
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident told us that the lack of action from the landlord and the efforts she has made to chase the landlord has affected her mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident pays a fixed service charge as part of her weekly rent. Part of her complaint is about the reasonableness and level of service charges in relation to the services she has received. We may not investigate complaints about the level of rent or service charge or their increases, or where it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective to seek a remedy via another procedure, such as the Tribunal. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with the resident was fair and reasonable and whether it responded sufficiently to the resident’s queries. If the resident remains unhappy with the level of service charges, or the level of increase in service charges, she may wish to seek independent advice.
9. The resident has told us that the issues with the external cleaning have been ongoing since 2022. The landlord has only investigated 6 months prior to the date it logged the stage 1 complaint in March 2024, in line with its complaints policy at the time. However, the evidence shows the resident first raised the complaint on 13 July 2023. Therefore, this investigation will include events and evidence prior to this date but no longer than 6 months before.
10. The resident sent the landlord an email and photographs of the bin stores on 3 May 2023. She told the landlord that the cleaning contractors were not attending fortnightly as agreed. She also said rubbish had been accumulating for weeks, possibly months. She asked the landlord what action it would take to monitor the issues long term. The landlord responded on the same day and said it had emailed the contractors and asked them to address the issue within a week.
11. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 May 2023 as the contractors had not cleared the bin stores. She asked the landlord to confirm whether they would be attending that day. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s email.
12. The resident emailed the landlord again on 12 May 2023 chasing a response as the contractor had still not attended. The landlord responded on the same day and said it had carried out a site inspection with management to show them the state of the area. It said it had contacted the contractors but it had not received a response. It said it had raised an order to remove the bulk items left in the bin area and it had sent a letter to residents asking them to dispose of house waste appropriately. While this showed the landlord had taken some appropriate action, its response raises concerns with its management of the cleaning contractors. The evidence shows the bin areas were cleared on 15 May 2023.
13. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 June 2023 to report that the rubbish was accumulating again in the bin stores and around the estate. She said there was no sign that the cleaning contractors had attended since the rubbish was last cleared. She said the smell was unbearable and she asked the landlord for a long term solution. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s email.
14. The resident raised the issue again on 13 July 2023 as she had not had an update from the landlord. The landlord responded on 3 August 2023 and said it had inspected the bin area and raised the issue again with the contractors. Although the landlord responded to the resident, it has not provided any evidence to show that it was considering a long term solution. It was reliant on the resident’s reports when it should have been proactively managing the concerns as it appeared to be a long term issue. This was not in line with the landlord’s estate management policy which says it will work to ensure that its neighbourhoods are clean and safe by carrying out estate inspections to ensure communal areas are maintained, kept clean, safe, and secure.
15. The resident sent the landlord an email on 18 October 2023. She attached photographs of the bin store on various days between 4 October 2023 and 16 October 2023. The pictures showed the bin store in a very poor condition with excessive amounts of litter on the floor. She said she had sent pictures to various officers expressing her concern.
16. The landlord contacted the contractors on 19 October 2023 and said the resident was raising another complaint as the bin areas were not being cleaned. It said it had tried to help the resident understand that it was hard to manage but it thought it was going to become another issue. It asked the contractor to ensure it did the cleaning weekly. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the issue was hard to manage if there was a contract in place for the work to be carried out. The landlord’s email to the contractor did not deal with the immediate problem of the build-up of rubbish. Had it arranged for an urgent clean and then reviewed whether the contractor was acting in line with the terms of the contract at that point, it may have reduced the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
17. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 25 October 2023. It said it had spoken to the cleaning contractors and they had agreed to inspect the bin areas the following week. The landlord said this was “a step in the right direction”. It said it was difficult to ensure the contractors cleaned the bin area fortnightly, but the inspector should help the cleaners see how they could tackle the situation. This again raises concerns with the landlord’s contract management as it should have been making sure the regular cleans were carried out in line with the terms of the contract. Had it done this, it would have been able to assess whether the frequency of the external cleaning was adequate for the estate. In addition, the landlord did not deal with the resident’s immediate concerns, which had been ongoing for a week at this point.
18. The contractors carried out an estate audit on 25 October 2023 and contacted the landlord by email on 26 October 2023. They said that there was a lot of bulk items inside and outside the bin store. They said, if the landlord wanted the bulk items removed, it would need to raise a purchase order. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord did this. It is also unclear how the inspection helped the landlord in developing any long term solutions.
19. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 February 2024 about the condition of the bin stores. She asked the landlord why it was charging residents for services it was not providing. She said the contractors did not attend which meant rubbish was left on the bin store floor for long periods of time before one of the residents cleared it. She said the smell from the bins was unbearable in the summer and she struggled with flies in her property as her kitchen window was opposite the bin store. The resident said she had continually complained but the landlord had taken no action.
20. The landlord responded on 14 March 2024 and said it had carried out an estate inspection. It said it was aware the resident was frustrated with the number of emails she was sending and it apologised. It said it was an ongoing issue with the contractors. It said it would raise the issue again and request the contractors check the area monthly. It is unclear from the evidence provided how often the cleaners were contracted to attend to clean and/or check the external areas. The landlord had previously asked the contractors to attend weekly and then fortnightly, yet this request was for monthly checks even though there had been no improvement. There is no evidence to show that the landlord took any responsibility for the ongoing issues. Had it put measures in place to monitor and ensure the cleaning contractors were carrying out their contractual duties in line with its estate management policy, it may have been able to resolve the issues for the resident much sooner.
21. The cleaning contractors told the landlord it had attended the estate on 20 March 2024. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 26 March 2024 and said the estate had not been cleaned. There is no evidence to show that the landlord queried this with the contractors or that it asked for evidence of the visit, such as logs or inspection forms. This raises further concerns of poor contract management and a lack of estate management.
22. The resident raised further concerns on 11 April 2024. She said she would contact environmental health if the landlord did not clean the bin stores within 5 working days. In response, the landlord arranged for its contractors to carry out a deep clean of the site and bin stores as a priority. It told the resident on 12 April 2024 that it had arranged for the clean to take place that day. The resident informed the landlord on 16 April 2024 that the contractors had not done the deep clean.
23. The landlord raised a further job for a chemical clean following a visit to the resident on 25 April 2024. The resident said the contractors carried out a deep clean on 7 May 2024, but not a chemical clean. She reported on 17 May 2024 that the cleaners had only cleared rubbish from the larger bin stores and that there had been no change to the overall conditions. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s email.
24. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were confusing and contradictory. The landlord said its systems showed that there had been no issues with the cleanliness of the bin stores. It also said it had investigated the cleaning and contractors and found no errors. However, the evidence shows that there had been significant issues with the accumulation of rubbish both inside and outside of the bin stores for a considerable period of time. Despite this, it offered £200 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time, and effort.
25. In the stage 1 response, the landlord promised to email the contractors attendance records to the resident, yet there is no evidence to show that it did this. The landlord also failed to recognise or acknowledge its poor communication with the resident, its poor contract management, and its failure to act in line with its estate management policy. There was also no meaningful resolution offered by the landlord and the resident has told us that the issues are still ongoing.
26. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
27. Given the observations above, the landlord has not shown that it put things right through the complaints process. We consider the offer of £200 compensation insufficient given the impact of the landlord’s failings. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £375 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer) to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

28. The landlord’s definition of a complaint within its complaints policy, and the timescales for responses at stage 1 and stage 2 are compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
29. The resident tried to raise a formal complaint with the landlord by email on 13 July 2023, 4 August 2023, 18 October 2023, and 29 February 2024. The resident was clear in all her correspondence that she wanted to raise a stage 1 complaint. On each occasion the landlord either logged a query or treated the contact as a service request. This is not in line with the Code (April 2022) which says at 1.4 “landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request”. This meant that there was a considerable delay in the landlord logging the resident’s complaint.
30. The resident contacted us on 12 March 2024 to ask for help. We contacted the landlord on the same day and asked it to log a complaint. We also asked it to check whether it had received any previous complaint requests from the resident, and to take this into account when responding to the complaint. There is no evidence to show that the landlord did this.
31. The landlord raised a formal complaint on 13 March 2024. It acknowledged the complaint within the timeframe of 5 working days set within its complaints policy. It sent the resident a stage 1 response on 26 March 2024. This was within the 10 working days set within the complaints policy.
32. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 4 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 23 April 2024. This was outside of the 5 working days set within the complaints policy. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 24 May 2024. This was within the 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord recognised the overall delay at stage 2 within its stage 2 response and it offered the resident £80 compensation for the delay, time, and effort. It did not recognise the resident’s attempts to raise a complaint from July 2023.
33. In light of the identified failings, we consider the compensation offered insufficient to put things right. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation to be appropriate (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer). This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and 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.

Learning

34. The landlord should ensure it takes a proactive approach to estate management rather than rely on reports from residents when things go wrong. The landlord should also ensure it sufficiently manages its estate cleaning contracts and raises concerns in a timely manner.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The evidence provided by the landlord was sufficient to conduct the investigation. However, it did not provide key documents such as cleaning logs or schedules.

Communication

36. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The evidence shows that, at times, it did not respond to the resident’s emails or keep her updated.