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 (202329734)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329734

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 response to the resident’s request to replace her windows and doors.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has an unnamed health condition which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 30 June 2021 the landlord inspected the property and noted that it needed to repair the wooden windows with wood filler and paint. The resident called it on 9 March 2022 to ask when all her windows would be replaced and it replied it did not have an appointment for this. She called it again on 6 June 2022 and asked for new windows. The landlord said this decision would be made by the contractor who attends to inspect. On an unknown date its contractor inspected the windows and sent a quote for replacement to the landlord. It cancelled the quote but then requested a new one on 14 July 2022.
  3. The resident chased the landlord on 12 September 2022, and it said it was still waiting for the quote to be approved. She chased it a further 2 times before it decided to reject the quote on 30 September 2022. Its record say it decided new windows were not needed. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 3 October 2022, which was about:
    1. The landlord refusing to replace her windows, which were old, rotten, and let the cold in. She said its contractor had previously told her they needed to be replaced.
    2. Her doors needed to be replaced as they shook in the wind and had gaps around them.
  4. The same day the landlord called the resident to acknowledge and discuss her complaint. It then sent its stage 1 response, in which it said it had inspected her windows and had decided that they did not need to be replaced. The landlord raised a repair for the windows, but the resident refused the works on 7 October 2022. She asked to escalate her complaint that day and said it was a waste of time trying to repair the windows. She said she had been waiting 11 months for replacements. She also said the landlord had sent contractors to measure up twice for quotes, and other contractors who had refused to do repairs. She chased the landlord for an acknowledgement and response to her stage 2 complaint on 18 November 2022 and 5 January 2023.
  5. On 11 January 2023 the resident called the landlord about a repairs appointment it had booked for 16 January 2023. The landlord said this was to inspect the windows and not to replace them. In an internal email on 28 April 2023 the landlord recommended replacing the windows as they were “in bad shape”. The resident called it again on 26 June 2023 about another appointment the landlord had booked. It told her it was going to repair the windows. She called it again on 29 June 2023 and 3 July 2023 and said she needed new windows. Its contractor attended a booked appointment but then emailed the landlord on 12 July 2023 to report the resident had refused repairs, as she wanted the windows to be replaced.
  6. In internal emails on 11 August 2023 the landlord asked about a booked repairs appointment and confirmed it was to replace the windows. It provided its stage 2 response on 16 August 2023, dated 11 August 2023, in which it:
    1. Apologised for the delay in providing the response, which it said was due to a backlog.
    2. Confirmed the windows were beyond repair, and that “the windows can be replaced and [it had] a date set for Monday 23 October for this to happen.”
    3. Offered £160 compensation for time and effort, inconvenience, and delay.
  7. On 20 October 2023 the resident called the landlord to chase up her window replacement. She called it again on 26 April 2024 and said it had inspected in January 2024, but her windows had still not been replaced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace her windows and doors

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord confirms it is responsible for repairing windows within its repairs policies. Under its policy for 2021 and 2022 it said it would complete non-emergency repairs “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”, and within 25 calendar days under its policy for 2023 onwards. Both repairs policies state that it will carry out component replacements, such as replacing windows, where needed due to age or wear and tear through a planned programme.
  2. The landlord identified that it needed to repair the wooden windows in 2021, but it is not clear whether it did so. By 2022 the resident started to chase it to replace her windows and her doors. When she chased it in June 2022, it told her the decision to repair or replace would be made following inspection, which was a reasonable approach. This was in line with the landlord’s component renewal procedure. As the landlord’s contractor provided a quote, it is reasonable to presume that it thought replacement was needed. It is not clear why the landlord rejected the quote, asked for a new one, and then rejected that quote. The records show it did not reject the quotes based on cost, but because it believed the windows could be repaired. However, it delayed for 4 months between the resident asking for new windows and making its decision, which was a failing.
  3. Under its component renewal procedure, when a resident requests a renewal, the landlord will check its scheduled programme. It will arrange an inspection if the property is not included on a programme. There is no evidence the landlord did this. If a renewal is recommended following a repairs visit, the landlord is to arrange for a supervisor to inspect within 5 working days of the repair appointment. There is no evidence the landlord followed its procedure, which led to delays and the resident’s expectations having been raised.
  4. The resident said as part of her complaint and escalation that its contractors had refused to repair the windows. The landlord has not provided any evidence of contractor reports or photographs. It has also failed to provide copies of the quotes it received. It also appears to have confused itself, at times insisting on repairs, and at others arranging to inspect the windows. While the resident did refuse some repairs appointments, the landlord did not actively pursue a solution to the situation.  By April 2023, over a year since the resident asked for new windows, the landlord accepted they were in bad condition. However, it failed to act. Prior to providing its stage 2 response, it checked a scheduled upcoming appointment was for replacement and confirmed it was. It clearly stated within its stage 2 response that it would replace the windows, and gave a date, but it failed to do so. That was a significant failing. As of April 2024, the resident was still waiting for window replacements, 8 months after receiving her stage 2 response. This was an unacceptable delay and failure to carry out a promised action as a resolution to the complaint.
  5. The resident included as part of her stage 1 complaint her request for replacement external doors. The landlord did not respond to this part of the complaint, and the resident did not include it within her escalation request. It is not clear what, if any, repairs the landlord completed.
  6. There was maladministration. The landlord failed to follow its repairs policies and its component renewal procedure. Its communication was poor which led to the resident having to chase it multiple times over a long period of time. Once it said it would complete replacements, in resolution to the stage 2 complaint, it then failed to do so. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord failed to demonstrate these principles. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident, an order has been made that the landlord pay £600 compensation. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. When the resident made her stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it and provided its response the same day, in line with its complaints policy timeframes. However, it failed to investigate the complaint before responding. Within its stage 1 response it said it was “unable to overrule” its previous decision not to approve new windows. This did not demonstrate that it had actually investigated the complaint, or had asked whether the decision should have been reconsidered. The landlord also failed to respond to her complaint about her doors. Both failings were a breach of paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time.
  2. The landlord failed to acknowledge escalation after the resident asked to escalate her complaint. It did not provide a response within its 20-working day timeframe. It provided its stage 2 response after 216 working days, in breach of its policy and paragraph 5.13 of the Code. This was an unreasonable delay. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted it had delayed and apologised for this. It said the delay was due to a backlog, but it had failed to ask for an extension of time as it could have done under its policy and the Code. It offered £160 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  3. The landlord correctly accepted it had delayed in response, apologised, and offered reasonable compensation. However, it did not recognise or remedy its other complaint handling failings. Due to this there was service failure. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £50 additional compensation, to reflect the additional time and trouble caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace her windows and doors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £650 made up of:
      1. £600 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its maladministration.
      2. £50 for the additional time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Replace the resident’s windows or provide proof if it has already done so.
    4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Paragraph 49 investigation

  1. The Ombudsman completed a special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included residents “having to chase the landlord to act on what should at times be straightforward requests, leading to them raising complaints, repeatedly trying to get the landlord to understand the seriousness of the situation and often being met with inaction”. We also found that “parts of the organisation did not prioritise listening to residents and acting on their concerns.”
  2. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time the report was published, no orders or recommendations about complaint handling have been made in addition to those made within the special report.