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 (202232684)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232684

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 November 2024


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:
    1. The resident’s request for alterations to the access point and privacy of the balcony.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property, which is a 2 bedroom flat on the 5th floor. The landlord is a housing association. The resident purchased the property on 3 January 2007 and is the first to occupy it. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident reported that when he first moved into the property, he noted that access to the larger balcony at the property was via a window rather than a door. The resident states he did not raise this with the landlord at the time and has accessed the balcony by climbing through the window. The resident also reported that the privacy glass on the balcony was clear rather than clouded but he also did not raise this with the landlord at the time.
  3. On 23 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to complain that he needed to climb through a window to use the balcony because there was no door to access it. The resident noted that as he has got older, he is finding it increasing difficult to access the balcony through the window. The resident also reported frustration that his parents and grandparents could not use the balcony. The resident also reported that the privacy glass on the balcony was not frosted. The resident stated that he felt the landlord had responsibility to rectify this because it was the freeholder of the building. The resident did not report any faults with the current windows.
  4. The landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused but noted that the resident was outside of the defects period for new properties. It also stated that its complaints policy stated it would only investigate matters less than 12 months old. As the resident had moved into the property in 2007, it felt the matter fell outside of this timeframe.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord by explaining that he did not consider the lack of door or privacy glass to be a defect. The resident expressed frustration that the landlord had not attended to assess his concerns and that he considered the landlord was responsible for the structure of the building.
  6. The landlord explained it had shared a photo and a video provided by the resident with a surveyor who noted that the lack of door and privacy glass should have been reported during the defects period and it was now for the resident to resolve the matter.
  7. The resident reiterated his concerns to the landlord in August 2023 and asked again for the landlord to put things right as it was responsible for the eternal walls and structure of the building. The landlord explained to the resident that the time frame for it to act had passed due to the length of time the resident had lived in the property. It stated that the resident would need to request permission to make these changes himself if he wished to do so and explained the process for this.

Jurisdiction

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for alterations to the access point and privacy of the balcony.

  1. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for alterations to the access point and privacy of the balcony is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. Paragraph 42.c. states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  3. The resident reported the lack of door to the balcony and privacy glass on 23 February 2022 which is 15 years after the property was purchased. The issues the resident has reported were identified when the he moved in but not acted on. 
  4. The Ombudsman cannot consider this complaint because it was not reported to the landlord within a reasonable time frame.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, The resident’s complaint about landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for alterations to the access point and privacy of the balcony is out of jurisdiction.