London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202318787)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318787

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 February 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

The complaint is about the level of compensation offered by the landlord following planned works.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bed ground floor flat with her 3 children. The resident occupies the property under an assured tenancy agreement.
The resident has not declared any vulnerabilities to the landlord or this Service.
The complaint centres around delays to planned works to the resident’s kitchen. The resident said that she incurred practical costs and had to take time pursuing the completion of repairs to damages that had occurred during the works. Given the delays and the level of workmanship experienced, the resident also said that this caused her and her children distress and inconvenience. The resident raised a formal complaint seeking compensation; however, she has said that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient.
The resident raised her complaint on 20 October 2022, in which she said:
1. She had recently had a planned kitchen replacement. Initially this was scheduled to last 10 working days, but ultimately it took 15 working days to complete.
2. During the period of the works, the resident was assured that she would be left with a working sink and oven at the end of each day. She said that this was not the case for 1 full week, and this resulted in her needing to buy takeaways for herself and her children.
3. The property was left dirty and dusty each day. This included a Stanley blade being left by a contactor on 3 occasions. The resident said this placed her children, particularly her 4-year-old, at risk.
4. She had to buy a further takeaway in the second week of works due to the floor-levelling screed in the kitchen taking longer to dry than planned, making the room inaccessible.
5. During the works, the contractors caused damage to door frames, walls, and the bathroom door.
6. Some of the workmanship was very poor, including badly finished kitchen tiles.
7. She had been advised by a heating engineer that the landlord’s contractors had “cut the power to the programmer, bypassed the system upstairs, and wired a live wire to the boiler giving it constant power and they have also plastered over these wires causing it to constantly overheat and cut out.”
8. The boiler was functional, but did not switch off when programmed or after use. She said this was resulting in additional heating costs.
9. The situation had caused alarm, distress, and financial hardship, as well as impacting on her physical and mental health. The resident also said that her children had suffered from the disruption as well.
The landlord contacted the resident by phone on 17 May 2023 to discuss the outstanding issues. During this call, the resident advised that she was frustrated not to have received a reply to her complaint. She said that she did not want the contractors to return to her property or for remedial works to take place. Instead, the resident wished to proceed only with seeking compensation for these matters.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 May 2023, in which it said it had considered the resident’s situation and was prepared to offer compensation. The landlord offered £300 compensation for delays in completing the planned works and “less than satisfactory service [she] received during this time”. This was comprised of:
1. £60 for the boiler issues, comprised of £10 for the first 5 days and then £2 per day thereafter, for a total of 25 days.
2. £80 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repairs.
4. £100 for poor complaint handling.
It should be noted that this totals £290; however, the landlord increased this figure by £10 to make the total £300.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 5 June 2023. The landlord’s call note said that the resident had declined the compensation offer, but did not record any further grounds for this.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 August 2023, in which it said:
1. It had spoken to the resident on 9 August 2023 and determined that the reason for the complaint escalation was that the compensation offered was too low.
2. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
3. It re-offered its previous £300 compensation. It also offered a further £30 compensation for issuing its stage 2 complaint response late and £20 for further distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 2 January 2024. She said that the level of compensation offered was not sufficient because:
1. Her boiler had not been functional for nearly 3 months.
2. The boiler had cost more in gas when it was not shutting down correctly.
3. She had been left without a cooker for periods during the works and this meant that she incurred additional costs for takeaways.
4. It did not reflect the level of time taken to pursue the matter and the distress and inconvenience that she and her children had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Level of compensation

The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will:
1. Not pay compensation when “customers have refused the necessary repairs needed to resolve the issue.”
2. Consider compensation for damage caused during major or planned works on a case-by-case basis. The landlord indicates that this will usually be managed and paid by the contractor responsible. Where damage is caused to decorations, the landlord commits to either repairing this or providing redecoration vouchers.
3. Pay £10 if it failed to respond to a request within its timescales.
4. Consider a partial refund of rent for loss of the use of one or more rooms in a property.
5. Consider discretionary compensation for loss of a service or facility, such as heating or hot water.
When considering the reasonableness of compensation that a landlord has awarded, the Ombudsman considers:
1. The levels of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the issues.
2. Any vulnerabilities or extenuating circumstances that should be considered.
3. Other redress offered by the landlord to resolve the matter.
4. The guidelines for compensation in our Remedies guidance, which is available on our website.
In this case, the evidence shows that the resident was seeking compensation for the following elements:
1. Loss of amenity, as she said that she was not able to use her kitchen for 1 week and 1 day. This caused her additional costs in purchasing takeaways for herself and her 3 children.
2. Loss of service and additional costs incurred from the boiler not shutting off correctly when a timed programme was completed. The resident said this was for a period of around 3 months.
3. Damage caused to her property by the contractors including to door frames, walls and the bathroom door.
4. The distress, inconvenience, time and trouble of pursuing the repairs and then the complaint to completion.
The resident said that she was not able to use her kitchen for 1 week and 1 day, despite assurances that she would be left with a working cooker and sink at the end of each day. She said this resulted in her buying takeaways during this period. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed this loss of amenity, or the additional costs incurred, in its complaint responses or compensation offer. This was a failing as the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) requires landlords to give “clear reasons for any decisions, referencing relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.”
The landlord’s repair records show that the boiler was intermittently reported as not functioning between July and October 2022. This included reports of it cutting out, not being able to be reset, and a lack of heating and hot water.
Within its complaint responses, the landlord awarded compensation that it said was equivalent to 30 days of disruption to the boiler. It calculated this as £10 for the first 5 days and then £2 per day thereafter, to a total of £60. It is unclear how the landlord calculated that 30 days of disruption had occurred, and this does not appear to be supported by its repair records.
Similarly, the landlord’s compensation policy does not prescribe the compensation rate used in this complaint response. The rate appears to be based on the Right to Repair rates, however, in this case, this clearly falls short of providing adequate redress for the resident. The Code requires landlords to be clear about how it has come to the outcomes it has made, particularly given the landlord’s timescale of 30 days conflicts with the resident’s account. As this has not been done in this case, this was a failing. The landlord should review its policy to ensure that it gives sufficient direction to its staff when calculating compensation in cases involving a loss of service or loss of amenity.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that it did not provide a lasting and effective repair to the boiler issues for a period of over 3 months. The landlord’s compensation offer recognised 30 days of disruption, but this is not reflective of the entire loss of service that the resident experienced. On this basis, the landlord’s compensation offer is not proportionate in this case.
Given that the resident experienced a loss of a service, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to mitigate the disruption to the boiler with practical measures, such as heaters and cooking facilities, and with reputational remedies such as an apology to the resident. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered the additional costs that the resident said that she experienced due to the boiler not shutting off after a programme. This was a failing, as the landlord failed to give its position on these additional costs or provide a suitable remedy.
The resident was also seeking compensation for damage to her property, which she said was caused by the contractors. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed this damage or considered any form of redress for this. Alternatively, the landlord could have considered referring the matter back to the contractor to remedy with a repair, or to its insurer for costs to be assessed (and paid if appropriate), as required by its policy. Given that the landlord did not consider or provide any remedy for this in its complaint response, this was a failing, as the Code requires landlords to clearly define its position in relation to each complaint raised by the resident.
From the evidence provided there is nothing to suggest that the landlord addressed or responded to the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s leaving unsafe items in her property. This included her reporting that stanley knife blades had been left in the kitchen on 3 occasions. The resident said that this posed a safety risk to her children. The lack of acknowledgement, response or addressing these concerns was a failing, which potentially left the resident’s children at risk.
Within its first complaint response, the landlord offered £80 for the distress and inconvenience that the resident had experienced. In its stage 2 response it increased this by £20, to a total of £100. The resident had raised multiple complaints regarding the level of service she had experienced, including disruption to her use of the kitchen, boiler, and additional costs incurred. She had also noted the impact of this situation on her three children. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was, therefore, not proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience she had reported. This was a failing by the landlord to provide a suitable remedy to this element of the resident’s complaint.
Taking these factors together, the landlord’s existing compensation offer is not proportionate to the issues the resident raised, and this is maladministration. The Ombudsman has considered its remedies guidance and orders the landlord to pay £851.47 compensation, comprised of:
1. £201.47 for the resident’s loss of use of her kitchen for 1 week and 1 day and the increased costs incurred in purchasing takeaways. This is based on 8 days of rent for the resident.
2. £350 for the resident’s loss of service and additional utility use through intermittent boiler issues over a 3–month period.
3. £300 for the resident’s time, trouble, distress and inconvenience over a protracted period in pursuing the matter to completion.
This compensation order replaces the landlord’s previous compensation offer. It is entitled to deduct from the total ordered above any sums that it has already paid to the resident.
Finally, the landlord must also assess if its contractors caused damage to the resident’s property and provide its written position on this. Where it assesses that damage was caused by its contractors it must do one of the following:
1. Repair the damage caused within a reasonable period of time.
2. Pay appropriate cost to the resident to allow her to undertake a repair herself.
3. Refer the matter to its insurer to assess for any financial redress due to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy in which it commits to responding to resident complaints in the following timescales:
1. Stage 1 – 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 – 20 working days.
The Code sets out a number of key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
1. Landlords must operate a 2-stage process without any additional or informal stages as this causes confusion and delay.
2. Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
3. Landlords must not extend the timescales for responding to complaint by more than 10 working days. In cases of extensions this must be clearly explained to the resident and the Ombudsman’s details must be provided.
4. Landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. Where any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification.
5. Landlords must address all points raised in a resident complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The Code also notes that a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents” and that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued 143 working days after receipt of the complaint. This is, in part, due to the fact that the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint by email on the 20 October 2022. Instead, the landlord initiated the complaints process from a subsequent call on 17 May 2023, in which the resident expressed that she was dissatisfied with not having received a response to her email.
This was a failing as the landlord failed to acknowledge or progress a complaint made by the resident in a timely way, until the resident chased for a further update. This caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing the complaint to completion. The timeline for issuing the response was in excess of the landlord’s policy timescales and those found in the Code. The landlord offered £100 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response for “poor complaint handling”.
Additionally, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued 52 working days after receipt. This was a further delay, which again caused the resident additional time and trouble in completing the matter and delayed her ability to progress her complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord offered a further £30 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response to account for this delay.
Within the evidence, it is also clear that the resident altered the scope of her complaint between making her initial complaint on 20 October 2022 and the subsequent call on 17 May 2023. Notably, this was a shift between seeking completion of repairs in the property, to seeking compensation. The resident explicitly stated that she did not wish the landlord to arrange any further works or allow the contractors to return to her property.
There is no evidence in the landlord’s complaint responses that it understood this change, nor did it articulate its position on this clearly. This was a failing as the Code requires landlords to clearly set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes that the resident is seeking.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also did not uphold the resident’s escalation, in which she sought additional compensation. The response simply stated that the complaint had not been upheld and re-offered the compensation previously made. It did not explain or justify this position in any way. This was a failing as the Code requires landlords to provide clear reasons for its decisions, with reference to law, policy, or other good practice where this is appropriate.
Overall, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling because:
1. While it offered compensation in relation to the complaint handling, there is no evidence that the landlord apologised for the delays in issuing its complaint responses.
2. There was a combined delay of 171 working days in issuing the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. This was well over the timescales published in its policy and within the Code.
3. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed any extended deadlines with the resident or kept her updated on the progress of the complaint.
4. The landlord did not confirm the changes in the scope of its complaint when the resident altered from seeking completion of repairs to only pursuing appropriate compensation.
5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not clearly give its position or the evidence that it had relied upon to conclude that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On this basis, the landlord’s previous offer of £130 compensation is not proportionate to the level of failings experienced by the resident. The landlord is now ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation and provide her with a written apology for the failings identified above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s level of compensation, following planned works.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the delays to the planned works and the landlord’s poor complaint handling, as identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,101.47 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £201.47 for the resident’s loss of amenity in the use of her kitchen for 1 week and 1 day and the increased costs incurred in purchasing takeaways.
  2. £300 for the resident’s loss of service and additional utility use through intermittent boiler issues over a 3-month period.
  3. £300 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience in pursuing these matters to completion.
  4. £250 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint to completion due to the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
  5. This order replaces the landlord’s previous compensation offer of £350. If the landlord has paid this compensation (or any part of it), then it is entitled to deduct this from the amount ordered.
3. Assess the damage caused to the resident’s property and provide its written position on this. Where it assesses that damage was caused by its contractors it must do one of the following:
  1. Repair the damage caused within a reasonable time, at its own expense.
  2. Pay appropriate cost to the resident to allow her to undertake a repair herself.
  3. Refer the matter to its insurer to assess for any financial redress due to the resident.

Recommendations

Following the Paragraph 49 special investigation published in 2023, it is recognised that the landlord altered its complaint and compensation policies. It also committed to monitoring changes periodically and in response to casework decisions. It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Uses this complaint to identify any lessons that could be learnt and utilised for organisational learning.
2. Considers this complaint against the changes it has made as part of its ongoing periodic reviews.