From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202325886)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325886

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 September 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:
    1. Gas repair work required at the property.
    2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom first floor flat in a communal building. The landlord, a housing association, owns the property.
  2. On 24 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor identified a gas leak from pipework within the property. In response to this they switched off the gas supply and said they would return to repair the pipework and reinstate the supply.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September 2023 in relation to a different matter. During this call he told the landlord that he had been without heating and hot water since July 2023 and its contractor had not contacted him to arrange the repair work. The resident complained to the landlord about this on 3 October 2023 and said he was unhappy that it had not completed repair work.
  4. On 24 October 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to ascertain the progress of the repair to the pipework. He advised that as repair work remained outstanding he wanted to escalate his complaint to the next stage of the process. Despite not yet issuing its stage 1 response it agreed to this.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 7 November 2023, however. It apologised for its delayed response to the repair work, poor communication and for missing pre-arranged appointments. It offered a total of £350 in compensation to the resident which it broke down as:
    1. £150 for distress caused by its failure to recognise the impact of the situation based on vulnerabilities.
    2. £150 for inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise the impact of the situation based on vulnerabilities.
    3. £50 for the resident’s time and effort to resolve the complaint.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 January 2024, stating he was unhappy that it had not yet provided a stage 2 response as it had agreed to in October 2023. He said that there were outstanding repair issues.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 20 February 2024. It apologised for its delays in completing repair work and providing its final response. It confirmed that it completed the repair to the pipework on 30 October 2023 and would attend to repair a hole in the wall that had resulted from this work. It increased its compensation offer to £620 which it broke down as:
    1. £180 for distress caused by its failure to recognise the impact of the situation based on vulnerabilities.
    2. £180 for inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise the impact of the situation based on vulnerabilities.
    3. £40 for the resident’s time and effort to resolve the complaint.
    4. £100 for poor complaint handling.
    5. £120 for missed appointments.
  8. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He wants it to increase its compensation offer.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that the resident has raised concerns about health and safety and the impact of the required repairs on his health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. In the resident’s correspondence he referenced previous repair issues dating back to 2011 to 2012 including a leak where his bathroom ceiling collapsed. Given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to now rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe, normally within 12 months of the matter arising. They could then progress these issues to us in a reasonable timeframe thereafter if they are unhappy with how a landlord responds.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman assesses landlords’ handling of residents’ complaints to ascertain whether they took reasonable steps to resolve these within their internal process. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the events and evidence from July 2023 leading up to its final response on 20 February 2024. Any events following its stage 2 response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.
  4. As part of the resident’s escalation request he raised new concerns over issues including ASB and pest control. The landlord explained that it would not address these issues in its responses as they did not form part of his original complaint. We are unable to consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to issues raised.  We have, therefore, not considered these matters as part of this investigation. The resident can raise these matters in a complaint to his landlord. If he is unhappy with its response he can then progress these to us should he feel it is appropriate to do so.
  5. The resident previously brought a complaint to us about the landlord’s handling of a leak. This was determined on 14 November 2022 and the complaint was subsequently closed following the landlord’s compliance with our orders. We are unable therefore, to reconsider this matter.

Gas repair work

  1. It is not disputed that there were delays in resolving the repair to the gas pipework. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) 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.
  2. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what events led to its contractor attending the property on 24 July 2023. During this visit they discovered the gas leak from pipework within the property. As they switched off the gas supply the resident had no heating or hot water. The contractor noted that it would carry out a further visit to establish how the pipework could be re-routed to resolve the issue.
  3. We have not seen evidence of any further reports relating to the repair work until over 2 months later. On 29 September 2023 the landlord contacted the resident regarding another matter. During this call he explained that the gas repair work remained outstanding, and he was without heating and hot water due to the gas supply remaining switched off.
  4. In response to this, the landlord chased its contractor on the same day regarding the situation. It found an administrative error by its contractor in July 2023 had led to them failing to request permission from it to complete the necessary repair work. They agreed to send this information through immediately. The evidence shows that the landlord subsequently chased this information on 2 and 3 October 2023. It found that its contractor had then sent the request to the resident in error, which resulted in a further delay. Correspondence between the parties on 5 October 2023 confirmed that the repair work had been approved.
  5. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint, the evidence shows that the landlord regularly chased its contractor regarding the repair. Despite several instances of communication between 5 and 26 October 2023, there were further delays in completing work. Incidents such as failing to attend an agreed appointment with the resident on 14 October 2023 without contacting him beforehand likely left him feeling very frustrated.
  6. It was positive that the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident regarding the situation throughout this time. Between 5 October 2023 and 1 November 2023, it made 6 calls to him to discuss progress with the repair work. During one of the calls on 24 October 2023 he requested escalation of his complaint due to the work remaining outstanding, which the landlord agreed to. Its completion of the repair work on 30 October 2023 was 73 days later than the response times set out in its repairs policy. This was a significant delay which it addressed in its subsequent stage 1 response.
  7. It was appropriate that in its stage 1 response on 7 November 2023 the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered redress to the resident. It gave a comprehensive breakdown of events that had led to delays and set out learning points it was considering. Examples of these include considering upskilling its contractors on the impact of missed appointments demonstrated an understanding of the key issues that had led to the resident’s dissatisfaction.
  8. The landlord offered the resident £300 in compensation at stage 1 with respect to the repairs. The breakdown of this apportioned redress for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures as well as his time and trouble. It said that its redress for distress and inconvenience included its failure to recognise the impact on the resident due to his vulnerabilities. It is important to note that we have not seen evidence of vulnerabilities recorded on its system pertaining to the resident. It is best practice for landlords to accurately record relevant vulnerabilities concerning residents. This ensures that its service delivery can take into account individual circumstances. Considering this we have made a relevant recommendation below.
  9. Although the landlord said in its decision that it does not compensate for a loss of heating outside of the winter period it would have been reasonable for it to do so for hot water. We have not seen evidence of the resident contacting the landlord between July and September 2023 during the time he was without hot water to chase its response. Given there had been communication errors regarding the repair work it appears the landlord was unaware of the full situation until 29 September 2023. Although it does not specifically refer to the loss of hot water within its compensation breakdown, we find that its total offer of £300 was reasonable and recognised the detriment caused to the resident during the duration of the situation.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 January 2024 to chase up a response to the escalation request he had made on 24 October 2023. He told it that he was unhappy that he had not yet received a response. He said that its contractor had made a hole in the wall during their visit to repair the pipework on 30 October 2023 which they had not rectified.
  11. It was appropriate that as part of its stage 2 investigation the landlord spoke to the resident about his concerns. He expressed that he believed the hole left in the wall by the contractor was a health and safety risk as it was exposing the gas pipe in the wall. In response it requested photographs of the affected area which it reviewed. After being satisfied that the issue was not an urgent one and did not pose a safety risk it raised a repair job on 6 February 2024 to fill and make good the area of the wall affected.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 20 February 2024 was comprehensive and gave a breakdown of events from July 2023 relating to the gas repair work. It gave explanations for its delays including the administrative errors and missed appointments by its contractor as discussed above. It said that it had arranged to attend to repair the hole in the wall however the resident had told it he wished for other unrelated repair work to be completed first. It summarised that he had agreed to get in touch when he was ready for it to complete the repair work to the wall.
  13. In the landlord’s final response it apologised for its errors and delays as well as leaving the wall in an “unsuitable condition”, following its repair work conducted on 30 October 2023. It increased its total compensation offer for the substantive issue to £480 which recognised distress and inconvenience. It apportioned £120 of this for the missed appointment and administrative errors. It explained that it would pay the compensation into the resident’s rent account to offset arrears. This is in line with its compensation policy which says that it will partly or fully offset a compensation payment against any debt owed by a customer, including rent and service charge arrears.
  14. It is our opinion that the landlord’s apology, compensation offer, completion of the repair to the pipework and offer to complete the repairs regarding the wall, put things right for the resident. Its compensation offer was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this, where there was failure by a landlord that adversely affected the resident causing distress and inconvenience. It is our opinion that this offer was therefore reasonable and along with the other steps taken, amounts to reasonable redress.
  15. We are aware that following the landlord’s final response, the resident contacted it on 14 March 2024 concerning the repair work needed to the wall. It subsequently completed this repair work on 4 April 2024.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. On 24 October 2023 during a conversation with the landlord regarding the substantive issue, the resident requested escalation of his complaint. Whilst its policy states it will only consider escalation once its stage 1 decision has been issued, it agreed to this. It however did appropriately issue its stage 1 response on 7 November 2023, which included information on how to escalate the complaint should the resident remain unhappy.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 7 November 2023 was issued 13 days later than the timescales set out in its complaint policy. It is clear from the evidence that it maintained regular contact with the resident from receipt of his complaint until this date as it worked to resolve the substantive issue. Although it did not mention this delay in its subsequent response which was a shortcoming, its offer of £50 in compensation for the resident’s time and effort regarding the complaint was reasonable given its delayed response.
  4. On 19 January the resident contacted the landlord as he was unhappy at not yet receiving a response from it at stage 2. It would have been appropriate for it to refer to its issue of the stage 1 decision and explain that in line with its policy, it could now consider escalation of the complaint which it would take from this date.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 2 February 2024, this was 5 days later than the timescales set out in its policy. In the acknowledgement letter however, it included the date of escalation as October 2023. This indicates that its promise to escalate the complaint early likely caused confusion and is learning the landlord should consider in its future complaint responses.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 February 2024. It was appropriate that in its response it acknowledged, apologised and offered redress to the resident for its delays. It made a revised offer of £140 in compensation which it apportioned as £100 for poor complaint handling and £40 for the resident’s time and effort in resolving the complaint. The amount offered in relation to time and effort at stage 2 is in contradiction to its offer at stage 1. This suggests it did not thoroughly review its prior response which is learning for the landlord to consider. Its compensation offer was in line with our remedies guidance as set out above and along with the other steps taken constitutes a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of:
    1. Gas repair work required at the property.
    2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays to the resident the sum of £620 if not already paid.
  2. We recommend that the landlord reviews its information relating to any vulnerabilities present in this household. It should ensure it records any relevant information accurately on its systems.