London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202450079)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202450079 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London & Quadrant Housing Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
16 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident was unhappy with the replacement front door the landlord installed following a fire. He said he and his wife struggled with the new lock. He also complained that the back doorstep was too high and narrow. He said they were elderly and both had health and mobility issues which the landlord was aware of. His daughter represents him in bringing the complaint to us. For convenience, this report refers to both the daughter and the resident as “the resident.”
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Request for a replacement front door and repairs to a back doorstep.
- Associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
- Maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s request for a replacement door and repairs to a back doorstep.
- Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Request for a replacement front door and repairs to back doorstep
- The landlord resolved the back doorstep issue, apologised for the delay, and offered compensation. However, it has left the front door lock issue outstanding for a significant period since its final response.
Associated complaint
- The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling delays and offered proportionate compensation.
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:
|
No later than 13 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £540 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.
The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 13 April 2026 |
|
3 |
The landlord must revisit the recommendations made in the OT report. It must liaise with the resident to agree a suitable solution. Once agreement has been made, the landlord must provide timescales and regular updates to the resident until the identified works are completed. |
No later than 13 April 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint is made on the basis that this compensation is paid. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
6 February 2024 |
The resident said the landlord installed a new front door after a fire at the property. He explained he was unable to use the lock on the new door because of health issues, particularly arthritis. He said he reported this, but it had not resolved the problem. He raised concerns that, in an emergency, he would be unable to get out or allow anyone to enter. He said it advised that an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment would be required. |
|
7 February 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 response. It apologised for not previously providing a clear answer about the issue. It said the door did not have a maintenance fault. It said the resident was unable to use the lock because he was accustomed to a simple Yale lock. As it identified no repair need, it said it could not raise a job to change the lock. It advised the best option would be for him to complete a tenant improvement form and gave instructions how to complete it. |
|
16 July 2024 |
The resident contacted the landlord regarding the back doorstep. He said the contractor provided an appointment date which would not be until 27 November 2024. He said he was at risk of falling and it was a health and safety issue, noted by the OT. He wanted the repair appointment brought forward. |
|
17 July 2024 |
The landlord treated the request to bring forward the back doorstep appointment as a complaint escalation and acknowledged the resident’s request. |
|
Between 17 July and 27 August 2024 |
The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to chase for an update on the back doorstep and the front door lock. He clarified numerous times that he was aware there was no fault with the lock, rather it was difficult to operate. The landlord requested the OT report which he said had already been provided in May 2024. |
|
27 August 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed the resident’s complaint related to the back doorstep and front door lock.
It said the work for the back doorstep was completed on 24 August 2024. It confirmed the contractor advised the lock could not be changed due to the multipoint lock system. They said a single point lock would render the door unsecure. It said it could not find the OT report on its system but had contacted social services to request their recommendations. It offered compensation of £190. This comprised:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident brought his complaint to us because he was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. He said the issue with the front door lock is ongoing and it took a long time to address the back doorstep. He said he is unable to use the lock on the current door and to resolve the complaint wants a replacement front door with a simple lock. |
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 |
Request for a replacement front door and repairs to back doorstep |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord installed a new front door at the property following a fire. The resident reported a problem with the door lock in January 2024. It initially treated the report as a routine repair and responded within its repair policy timescales which aims to complete the repair within 20 working days. The contractorsaid the lock was not faultybut the resident was finding it difficult to use. They left instructions explaining how to operate the lock. They advised a different lock could not be installed due to the multipoint lock system.
- The resident stated in his complaint that his vulnerabilities, including arthritis, made the lock hard to use rather than indicating any fault. The landlord attended on multiple occasions and repeated that there was no fault. This did not demonstrate that it listened to the resident’s concerns and likely caused frustration. He expressed particular concern that he would be unable to get out or let anyone in during an emergency.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and advised him to complete a tenant improvement form. However, the evidence does not show it considered his vulnerabilities when installing the new front door or when it attempted to resolve the difficulties with the lock. This is not in line with its aids and adaptation policy. It states the needs of vulnerable residents are identified and assessed to enable them to live safely within their homes.
- The landlord was not clear what the outcome of the tenant improvement form would be. It did not discuss alternative options through OT assessment or Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) in its initial response. It had previously recommended an OT report in January 2024 but did not discuss this further or take any action. It could have offered additional support to provide a suitable resolution by considering what support needs were required. Its aids and adaptations policy addresses minor adaptations and states that often these are requested by an OT, but the report is not required for installations. It says it would normally fund minor adaptations without the need to apply for a DFG. As such, it could have considered a quicker solution following the resident’s reports to prevent unnecessary delays.
- An OT assessment was completed in May 2024. The recommendations were detailed as follows:
- Installation of concrete half step at the front access.
- Reconfiguration of concrete steps at back door. New steps to be a maximum height of 4″ high and at a depth of between 14″ to 16″. Bilateral galvanised handrails must also be installed adjacent to the full length of the newly reconfigured steps.
- Replace current front and back door locks with Yale type lock, similar to the locks at the property before it burnt down.
- The landlord’s repair records show it raised works on 5 July 2024. The resident chased for updates. It initially gave him a date in November for the back doorstep but provided no update on the front door lock. It later brought the back doorstep repair forward and completed it in August 2024. This was reasonable to resolve the issue with the back doorstep. However, it told him it could not find the OT report in its records and asked him to provide it. This demonstrates poor record management. Although it completed some repairs based on the recommendation, it could not progress other works because it could not locate the report. In addition, it had already raised works for the front door lock, so it is unclear why these had not progressed together.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and said it would contact social services to request the OT report again. The resident provided a copy on 29 August 2024, and it advised it would send the report to the relevant team. It gave limited updates until the resident chased again. An internal email on 28 January 2025 suggested staff should raise a further job with clear directions to inspect the door handle and lock. There is no evidence that it followed through on its promised actions or provided a reasonable resolution.
- The issue remains unresolved 18 months after the final response. Although it offered £140 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, this is not proportionate to the ongoing delays.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint within the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
- The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 complaint response within 5 and 10 working days respectively,in line with its policy timescales
- The landlord acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days in line with its policy. It issued its stage 2 complaint response 9 working days later than its 20 working day timescale. Although it told the resident it would send the response once it completed the actions, it did not proactively request an extension in line with its policy. It did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay. That said, it awarded £50 for poor complaint handling, which was proportionate to the delay and within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.
Learning
General
- The landlord should request an extension to provide its complaint response if it needs more time. It should proactively make this request and explain to the resident why the response is delayed. In its complaint response, it should acknowledge the delay and address the cause to prevent it from happening again. It should ensure that any promised actions are completed and updates provided.
- The landlord should identify potential issues affecting vulnerable residents sooner and provide any necessary support.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord should maintain accurate and complete records. This will help prevent frustration for residents and delays to potential resolutions.
Communication
- Overall, the landlord communicated poorly. Effective communication reassures residents that the landlord is considering and addressing their concerns.