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 (202308712)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308712

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 April 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports about the condition of the windows at the start of the tenancy.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy on a flat owned by the landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 18 February 2023.
  2. On 20 February 2023, the resident notified the landlord that the kitchen skylight would not open, and the bathroom skylight could not close, allowing cold air in. He said he deemed the property uninhabitable. On 21 February 2023, he requested the landlord to adjust the tenancy start date or refund the rent paid until repairs were finished. The landlord inspected the property on 23 February 2023 and completed the repairs on 16 March 2023.
  3. We have not seen the resident’s formal complaint and are unsure when it was raised. Later correspondence shows that the resident chose to extend his previous accommodation by another month, which cost him £600, and he asked the landlord to reimburse him this amount in full.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response letter on 7 April 2023. It said it had made the property safe and completed follow-up repairs within a reasonable time. It said it had found no evidence that the windows posed a health or safety risk to render the property uninhabitable at any time. However, it accepted that the window should have been repaired before the tenancy started. It offered the resident £140 in compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out the repairs. It increased this offer to £200 in the same month.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. He asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 12 May 2023. The landlord responded with its final complaint response on 11 October 2023. It confirmed its stage 1 response. However, it recognised a delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2 and for failing to register the complaint at stage 1. To reflect the inconvenience caused, it offered an additional £160 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
  6. The resident asked us to investigate his complaint on 17 October 2023. He disputed the landlord’s claim of making the property safe. He also said that appointments had been booked without confirming that it had the necessary parts to complete the repair. He said the compensation amount did not reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows at the start of the tenancy.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement reflects the landlord’s obligation under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act to repair and keep in repair the structure of the property, including its windows. The landlord failed to ensure the windows were in good working order at the start of the tenancy, and that was a failing. The landlord accepted this in its complaint response.
  2. On 18 February 2023, the resident inspected the property together with an independent inventory surveyor. The inventory report said the bathroom skylight was in the open position and did not close. The closing mechanism was not working fully, and because of the height of the windows, they were unable to fully inspect it. They reported that the open mechanism of the kitchen skylight was not attached to the frame, and that it was not possible to open the window. The resident reported the findings of the report to the landlord on 20 February 2023. The resident added that as the bathroom window was left open, it allowed cold air into the property. He also said that the property was uninhabitable.
  3. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord inspected the property on 23 February 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy states that for emergency repairs, where there is an immediate danger to the resident, the landlord will attend within 24 hours to make it safe. The resident’s description was consistent with that of the inventory report, and there was no indication of the resident being in immediate danger. Therefore, the landlord’s attendance was within a reasonable time.
  4. In his escalation request and in his referral to the Service, the resident rejected that the operatives who attended on 23 February 2023 had made the property safe. He accepted, however, that operatives offered to close the bathroom window. As the resident raised concerns about cold air entering the property, the landlord’s solution of closing the window was a reasonable measure to ensure the property was safe pending a full repair. The landlord’s operative also found no immediate risk to health or safety, except for the cold air reported by the resident. Neither the surveyor nor the resident identified any health and safety risks during the pre-tenancy inspection.
  5. The landlord was initially scheduled to attend the repair on 6 March 2023. It called the resident to reschedule due to a delay in its replacement part order. The repair was completed on 16 March 2023, which was 24 days after the resident’s initial report on 20 February 2023. This met the landlord’s target of completing day-to-day repairs within 25 calendar days. In summary, the landlord failed to ensure the windows were functional before the start of the tenancy. Once the tenancy started and the resident raised the repair, the landlord completed it within the time frame specified in its policy.
  6. Despite having no evidence that the property was uninhabitable, the landlord considered the resident’s request for £600 reimbursement. It asked the resident to provide evidence. However, the resident was unable to provide a tenancy agreement or show historical rent payments. The landlord appropriately explained that it could not justify paying such an amount of compensation. It offered the resident £200 in compensation.
  7. Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is our role to consider whether the redress it 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 our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  8. We consider the sum of £200 to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance which says this amount would be reasonable in situations where a failure by the landlord adversely impacted the resident but did not have a permanent impact. We consider the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was a reasonable and proportionate step to take to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in carrying out the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 10 May 2023, and the landlord acknowledged this escalation on the same day. Against a target response time of 20 working days, the landlord sent its final response letter 109 working days later on 11 October 2023.
  2. In its stage 2 letter, the landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the resident’s escalation. It explained that it had a backlog of complaints. However, it accepted that this was a service failure. It also acknowledged it had not registered the resident’s correspondence of 24 February 2024 as a formal complaint. To put things right, it offered the resident additional compensation of £160 for its poor complaint handling. It also said that, as a result of the complaint, it would review its service failures identified in this case and would use this opportunity to improve its services in the future.
  3. The landlord showed that it followed the Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Principles. It acted fairly by acknowledging its shortcomings and apologising to the resident. It put things by offering fair and proportionate compensation, and it also identified learning from the complaint. The amount of compensation was reasonable because it was in line with our remedies guidance, as referenced above. We consider the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was a reasonable and proportionate step to take to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows at the start of the tenancy, reasonably
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint, reasonably.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £360 it offered during its internal complaint process. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.