London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202416390)

Back to Top

 

  A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416390

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 July 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 response to the resident’s queries regarding the:
    1. Grounds maintenance service charge.
    2. Water testing service charge.
    3. Management fee.
  2. This investigation has also considered the redress the landlord offered for its handling of the associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord for the property. The property is a flat within a block, which is 1 of 2 blocks within a development. In this report the resident’s block will be referred to as ‘block a’ and the other block will be referred to as ‘block b’.
  2. On 29 July 2022 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord concerning the service charges for the financial year 2021-22. She said in her complaint:
    1. The grounds maintenance charge did not reflect the service that was delivered.
    2. The water testing charge was only applied to the residents of block b. The resident questioned why only 1 block was charged when the 2 blocks were identical.
    3. The management fee for block a was £225 and £120 for block b. The resident questioned this difference as the blocks were identical.
  3. On 24 November 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. The landlord passed the concern about the standard of the grounds maintenance to its neighbourhood housing lead. It explained the purpose of water testing and said it included a charge for this within the resident’s 2022–23 estimate service charges. The landlord confirmed the difference in the management fee between the 2 blocks was incorrect. It said it charged block a the correct fee and it would amend this in the next statements. In recognition of the delay in its response, the landlord offered the resident £50 credit towards the management fee charge.
  4. On 13 December 2022 the resident escalated her complaint. She reiterated her complaint about the grounds maintenance charge. She said the landlord did not explain why it had only charged 1 block for water testing and the charge had not been applied to residents of the blocks previously. She questioned how often the testing would need to take place. Regarding the management fee, the resident said it was unfair and discriminatory for the landlord to charge block a, more in the last 2 previous financial years (2020-21 and 2021-22).
  5. On 17 April 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said its records showed it delivered the grounds maintenance regularly. However, due to the delay in responding to the complaint full details of this were not available. The landlord offered £75 compensation for this delay and the missing records. The landlord confirmed its policy recommended water testing every 3 years and the last assessment for the property was completed in October 2021. It said it charged a fixed management fee since April 2020 and considered the £225 charge reasonable. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It offered the resident £520 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling and the resident’s time and effort.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us. She said the landlord had no records to disprove her claim about the grounds maintenance service. She said the landlord had not explained why it only charged block b for water testing. She also felt it was unfair the landlord admitted to undercharging block b for management fees and did not offer redress to the residents of block a.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation will consider whether the landlord offered a reasonable and timely response, including whether the landlord gave the resident the correct information to help her understand the charges. We are unable to make findings about the level of reasonableness of service charges or whether they are payable and to whom. Disputes about variable service charges are appropriate for the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) to consider.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries regarding the ground maintenance charge

  1. On 29 July 2022 the resident complained about the ground maintenance charge. She said according to the grounds maintenance contract, the contractor was to attend every 2 weeks. However, she believed the contractor had only attended on 8 occasions between July 2021 and January 2022. She provided a list of the dates and said the total cost for grounds maintenance was £1,847.85, which she did not consider comparable to the service received. She requested the landlord refund all residents for the grounds maintenance.
  2. On 24 November 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it passed the issue regarding the ground maintenance to the resident’s neighbourhood housing lead to deal with as a service related query.
  3. On 28 November 2022 the resident said she did not accept the landlord’s response and stated the landlord had ‘passed the buck’ rather than addressing her complaint. On 30 November 2022 the landlord responded and said it passed the matter to the neighbourhood housing lead to ensure the resident had a point of contact for future issues she had with the service. The landlord advised the resident to raise a complaint about ground maintenance separately.
  4. On 13 November 2022 the resident escalated her complaint. She also provided evidence of concerns she raised to the landlord about the service during the year 2021-22 and said the landlord did not resolve the problem.
  5. On 17 April 2024 the landlord provided its final response. The landlord said its records showed it completed grounds maintenance regularly during the 2021–22 financial period. It said its records also showed communication between its estate services team and the contractor. However, it could not provide full details of this due to the delay in its response. The landlord offered the resident £75 for delay in addressing this aspect of the complaint and the insufficient records. The landlord also confirmed the ground maintenance charge for the block for the financial year 2021-22 financial year was £1,589.71.
  6. The Housing Ombudsman’s insight report on service charges sets clear expectations that landlords must demonstrate that a charge is consistent with the lease or tenancy, that the service was actually delivered, and that the standard was reasonable. The landlord must also provide clear, timely, and detailed information to residents.
  7. Analysis of the landlord’s responses to the complaint show it failed to provide adequate evidence its contractor delivered the grounds maintenance service in line with the expected standard and frequency. While the landlord referred to internal records, it acknowledged that these were not available to the resident due to its delay in responding. This failure undermines the credibility of its claims. The landlord’s failure to properly address the issue at stage 1 was a missed opportunity to resolve the matter earlier. The landlord also stated the incorrect total charge within its final response. The final service charge statement for 2021-22 confirmed the charge was £1,847.85 whereas the landlord stated in its response it was £1,589.71.
  8. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  9. Whether the charge paid by the resident was reasonably incurred or not would be for the FTT. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was aligned to our remedies guidance when we identify the impact of the landlord’s failings may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. There is no evidence upon which the landlord was able to demonstrate the service was delivered, and as such its compensation offer and apology appropriately acknowledged this to be the case.
  10. The redress offered by the landlord in its complaint response put things right for its inability to demonstrate it had provided the service through its records. As such, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves the complaint. We recommend the landlord considers whether this offer of redress may apply to other residents in the blocks. Specifically, those who have also complained about the ground maintenance service levels and related charges for the same period.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries regarding the water testing charge

  1. The resident’s complaint at stage 1 was that the landlord had only charged block b for the water testing. She questioned why this was the case when the blocks were identical.
  2. In the landlord’s stage 1 response the landlord said it had included a charge for water testing within the 2022-23 service charge estimate. The landlord said the charge was mandatory to detect and eliminate issues such as legionella. It confirmed water testing took place in the resident’s block and the charge was therefore valid.
  3. The evidence shows the landlord’s statement that it had included the charge within the 2022-23 estimate service charge was not factually correct. The landlord included a water charge within the resident’s estimated charges for the financial year 2024-25. The landlord’s stage 1 response also did not explain why it had only charged 1 of the 2 blocks.
  4. On 28 November 2022 the resident responded to the landlord and said it failed to explain why it had only applied the charge to block b. She also said the landlord had not applied the charge previously and asked how often the test was supposed to be done.
  5. The landlord responded on 30 November 2022 and said the water charge for the resident’s block was correct and it would rectify errors for the other block in due course. The landlord said it did not charge retrospectively for services omitted from service charge estimates. The landlord said the fact it had not charged the residents previously meant it had previously covered the cost of the water testing as the landlord.
  6. Analysis of the landlord’s response shows it provided an explanation as to why it had not applied the charge in previous statements. However, it still failed to answer the question as to why it only charged 1 of the blocks and how often the testing was meant to take place. The resident therefore escalated her complaint on 13 December 2023.
  7. In the landlord’s final response, it confirmed its policy recommended it complete 3 yearly water risk assessments for its properties with shared water tanks. It said the resident’s property fell under this category and it completed a water risk assessment for the property in October 2021. It said the next assessment was due in October 2024.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord explained the nature of the water testing and the frequency it did this. However, it did not address the resident’s concern about why it charged only 1 block for the service. The evidence shows water testing took place at block b during the 2021–22 financial year, justifying the charge to that block. There is no evidence of water testing to block a during the same period. Despite being aware of this, the landlord did not clearly explain why this had occurred or provide a rationale for charging only block b. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue through clear and transparent communication. In addition, the stage 2 response stated the landlord completed water testing at the property in October 2021, which implied it tested both blocks. However, the evidence shows it completed water testing to block b only.
  9. In summary the landlord explained what the water testing involved and the expectation for it to do this in line with its policy. However, it did not provide the resident an answer as to why it only charged block b, based on the evidence it had. The landlord’s responses also contained inaccuracies and statements not supported by the evidence. These failures in its responses leads to a determination of maladministration.
  10. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its response to the resident’s query concerning the water testing charge. We also order the landlord to clarify to the resident whether it completed water testing to her block (block a) in October 2021, as it suggested in the final response. Where possible, the landlord should provide evidence of this to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s query regarding the management fee

  1. The resident’s complaint to the landlord on 29 July 2022 said the landlord had charged the residents in block a, a management fee of £225 and the residents of block b £120.
  2. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it confirmed the discrepancy in the management fees between the blocks was an error. It confirmed it charged block a the correct amount. It advised it would correct this in future statements.
  3. On 28 November 2022 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response. She said she felt it was unfair the landlord had charged block a more than block b. She said the landlord should not retrospectively charge block b. On 30 November 2022 the landlord responded and confirmed it would not charge block b retrospectively. It clarified it would in future statements adjust the management fee for block b, so it charged both blocks the same.
  4. On 13 December 2022 the resident escalated the complaint. She acknowledged the landlord’s agreement to rectify the error. However, considered it was unfair the landlord had charged residents in her block (block a) more in management fees for the last 2 financial years. The resident said she wanted the landlord to refund the residents of block a, the difference they had paid.
  5. On 17 April 2024 the landlord confirmed how it calculated the £225 management fee. It explained it had completed a benchmark exercise to determine the fee.
  6. The evidence shows that the landlord’s service charge policy states its management fees are fixed and not subject to retrospective adjustment. As such, the landlord does not have the ability to recover the undercharge from block b. It confirmed it would not seek to do so. While the landlord acknowledged it undercharged block b, it confirmed block a was charged the correct fee. The resident felt it was unfair that block a paid more. However, there was no financial disadvantage to block a, as residents there paid the set amount. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining its rationale for how it calculated the charge and by committing to align the charges for both blocks in the future.
  7. There was no failing by the landlord in its response to the resident’s query about the management fee. This results in a finding of no maladministration in relation the landlord’s response to the resident’s query concerning the management fee.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident sent her stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 29 July 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 November 2022. The landlord offered the resident £50 credit towards her management fee in recognition of the delay in its response.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 December 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 April 2024. The landlord offered the resident £520 compensation. This was in recognition of its handling of the complaint at stages 1 and 2 and the resident’s time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy when the resident submitted her complaint stated it would provide a response at stage 1 10 working days after it received the complaint. The policy states at stage 2, the landlord would respond within 20 working days of the escalation. The policy stated if the landlord needed more time, it would inform the resident.
  4. The evidence shows the landlord’s responses at both stages of the complaints procedure were significantly beyond the timeframes within its policy. It did not inform the resident of the delays. The evidence also demonstrates the resident chased the landlord several times before she received its responses at both stages.
  5. The landlord offered the resident a total of £570 in recognition of the time it had taken to respond to the complaints as well as the resident’s efforts in trying to resolve the complaint. We have considered this against our remedies guidance and find the level of compensation is reasonable in the circumstances. This is because the landlord offered compensation aligned to our guidance in circumstances where there was an adverse impact on the resident due to the significant delay in the landlord’s responses. Because the landlord made an offer which resolved the complaint, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its response to the query regarding the ground maintenance charge.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the query regarding the water testing charge.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the query regarding the management fee.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to handling of the formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her query regarding the water testing charge. This payment must be made directly to the resident and must not be used to offset any arrears.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to confirm whether the water testing was completed to the resident’s block (block a) in October 2021 as it suggested in the stage 2 response. Where possible, the landlord should provide evidence of this to the resident.
  3. The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders and within the specified timescale.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pay the resident the £75 it offered for the complaint about the ground maintenance charge if it has not already paid this.
  2. We recommend the landlord consider whether its offer of redress to the resident in response to the complaint regarding the ground maintenance charge should also apply to other residents in the block. Specifically, residents who have also complained about the same.
  3. We recommend the landlord pay the resident the £570 it offered (including the £50 credit it offered at stage 1) for its complaint handling if it has not already paid this.