London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202322512)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322512

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 March 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of :
    1. The resident’s reports about communal electric repairs.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 2nd floor.
  2. On 23 March 2023 the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property to complete electrical testing works to the communal area. During this testing, the resident’s property lost its electricity supply.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day to raise a complaint. She said the contractor turned her electricity off affecting her ability to work from home. She said the contractor had offered to pay for her to go to a café to work but this was not possible. She also said she was unhappy at having to allow access to contractors as she felt it was the landlord’s responsibility to arrange this.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2023. It did not uphold her complaint, although it did apologise for any inconvenience she experienced. It said that contractors sent a letter to the resident on 8 March 2023 giving notice of the works and the potential for disruption to the electric supply. It also said that the property lost its supply for approximately 30 minutes. It added that it was not always possible for it to arrange a representative to allow access and in the circumstances the contractor’s actions were reasonable.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord on 15 April 2023, escalating her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said she had not received a copy of the letter and that, having looked at a neighbour’s letter, this said it would not affect the power within the flats. She also disputed the landlord’s assertion that she lost electricity for 30 minutes instead saying this had gone on for 3 and a half hours.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 November 2023. It offered the resident £110 compensation, although it said it did not uphold her complaint. This consisted of £60 for its delays in handling her complaint, and £50 for the distress and experience she experienced. It also said it had not been able to confirm any wrongdoing on its behalf when dealing with the loss of electricity, or with how its contractor accessed the property.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 15 November 2023 to ask us to consider her complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response and felt it did not give her appropriate notice about the disruption to the electric supply. She was also unhappy with the contractor’s statement that she only lost electricity for 30 minutes, as well as the fact that she had to answer the bell to the landlord’s contractors.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about communal electrical repairs

  1. The landlord’s contractor wrote to all of the properties in the building to inform them of the communal electrical works. The resident said she did not receive this. The landlord has been able to provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman. Although it is unfortunate that the resident did not receive this, the landlord is not at fault for any postal issues. As the resident’s neighbours received a copy of this letter, the evidence indicates that the contractor attempted to give advanced notice of the works.
  2. The wording of this letter states that the communal electrical testing ‘should not affect the power inside each flat’. Whilst this may have been the case, the wording of the letter indicated that there was a possibility that the communal testing could affect the electric supply to individual flats. The landlord should consider amending the wording of these letters in the future to avoid any confusion.
  3. There is no documentary evidence available for the Ombudsman to conclude how long the resident was without electricity. The contractor said that this was 30 minutes, which the resident disputed. She said the disruption began at 09:00am and went on until 12:28pm. Given the lack of evidence, we are unable to establish the extent of the inconvenience caused to the resident on the day of the communal works.
  4. Whilst the resident was without electricity, the landlord’s contractor offered to pay for her to visit a nearby café. The resident declined this offer as it was not convenient for her. However, it was good practice for the landlord and its contractor to offer this option to the resident. 
  5. The resident also said she is unhappy that contractors often ring her doorbell when attempting to access the block. The landlord spoke to the contractor about what occurred on 23 March 2023. However, there was no record of how the contractor gained access to the communal areas to perform the electrical testing.
  6. Given the communal electrical testing affected all the residents in the block and advanced notice was attempted, it was not unreasonable for the contractor to ask the resident to provide access. This is especially true when the landlord is not able to arrange for a representative to be present.
  7. The landlord stated that it is not always possible for it to arrange for its representative to be present to provide keys to contractors, although it does have a communal key. There is no indication that the landlord was on notice to avoid contacting the resident for access to the communal area so we have found no failure on its part. The landlord should however consider what steps it can take to minimise any disruption contractor access causes to the resident moving forward.
  8. The landlord maintained throughout the complaints process that it had found no fault in its actions. It nonetheless offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience of this situation. The temporary loss of electricity undoubtedly caused inconvenience to the resident and, as mentioned above, it is unclear the extent of this outage. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to recognise this and pay the resident compensation.
  9. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation represented a reasonable offer of redress. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends amounts in this range where there has been a minor failure by the landlord which had an impact on the resident for a short duration.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, the landlord aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then says it will provide its written response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. At stage 2, the landlord says it will provide its response within 20 working days of the escalation request. At both stages, it says that if there are delays it will write and explain why.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day she raised this. It then provided its written response within 5 calendar days of acknowledgement. This was in line with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy.
  3. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord failed to log the complaint until 12 October 2023. This was after the resident had chased the landlord for updates on 7 June 2023, 31 July 2023, 22 August 2023 and contacted the Ombudsman about the lack of a response on 30 September 2023.
  4. The time taken to provide its stage 2 complaint response was significantly outside of the timescales mentioned in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord took 140 working days to provide its complaint response.
  5. The landlord recognised that its service had fallen short, apologised for this and offered the resident £60 compensation for its complaint handling failures. Given the length of the delay and the time and trouble caused to the resident over this period, this offer of compensation did not represent a reasonable offer of redress.
  6. The landlord should increase its offer of compensation to £150. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends an amount in this range for ‘a failure which adversely affected the resident’.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about communal electric repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident £150 for its failures in handling her complaint (this is inclusive of the £60 it offered through the complaints process).
    2. Apologises to the resident for these failings.
    3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based upon the landlord paying this amount to the resident.
  2. The landlord should consider what steps it can take to minimise any disruption caused to the resident by contractors ringing her bell for communal access. The landlord should also consider writing to the resident to outline these steps.
  3. The landlord should consider amending the wording of its letters to ensure that it makes residents aware of any minor possibility of losing electrical supply during relevant communal works.