London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202340986)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340986

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 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 response to the resident’s report of a power surge in the property.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease for the property. The property is a flat situated on the eighth floor of a block. The freehold of the block is owned by a third party private company. The landlord has a head lease with the freeholder and a sublease with the resident. A managing agent manages the development and provides services on behalf of the freeholder.
  2. On 10 December 2021 the resident reported to the landlord there had been a power surge that morning. He said this had left appliances, including the boiler, burnt. The issue caused a loss of power and affected other flats in the block. On the same day the resident submitted a complaint. He stated in the complaint he had been without electricity for more than 6 hours.
  3. On 11 January 2022 the resident submitted another complaint to the landlord. He said his electrical appliances were damaged as a result of the issue on 10 December 2021. The resident said he contacted the landlord on the day it happened and was unhappy with its response. The resident also said he requested the building insurance details from the landlord and he had not received this.
  4. On 26 January 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said the loss of power was outside of its control and it was reliant on the managing agent and the electric distribution network operator to resolve the issue. The landlord provided a summary of the events on the day the issue occurred. It also explained the action it took to place the residents affected by the loss of power into temporary accommodation. The landlord recognised there was a delay in it providing the resident with the building insurance information and apologised for this.
  5. On 27 January 2022 the resident escalated his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the way the landlord had managed the situation. He said the landlord did not provide him an update for 24 hours after he reported the issue. The resident said he received an insurance certificate from the landlord but not the policy schedule.
  6. On 30 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said the electric distribution network operator was responsible for the power surgeand the damage to the resident’s belongings. It said the managing agent was responsible for the communal repairs as a result of the power surge. The landlord advised any loss or damage to the resident’spersonal items should be covered by his contents insurance. It recommended he make a claim. The landlord also said the resident may make a claim to the electric distribution network operator, who it said was responsible for the issue.
  7. On 21 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to review the complaint again. In February 2024 he brought the complaint to us. He said the landlord informed him it would look into the matter following his correspondence in May 2023 but did not respond to him thereafter.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a power surge in the property

  1. On 10 December 2021 at 1:20pm the managing agent informed the landlord there had been a power outage to the block which affected some flats in the block. The managing agent confirmed it had an electrician on route to the block. At 3:08pm the resident emailed the managing agent and the landlord to report the issue. He said the electric distribution network operator attended earlier in the day and identified an internal fault in the block.
  2. Later the same day, the resident called the landlordand submitted a formal complaint. The resident has said, during the call, the staff member he spoke with advised they did not have an update from the managing agent and then disconnected the call. The resident said in his complainthe had been without electricity for 6 hours.
  3. The managing agent made the landlord aware later in the same afternoon, approximately 4:47pm, the required part it needed to restore the power would not be available for the next few days. The managing agent confirmed it was waiting for a response from its insurer about whether it could arrange temporary accommodation for the residents of the flats affected. After 5pm that evening, the managing agent confirmed to the landlord its insurer could not guarantee it would provide cover for it to temporarily accommodate residents. The managing agent confirmed the fire brigade insisted the flats were evacuated and said the landlord would need to contact its residents and arrange temporary accommodation.
  4. On 11 December 2021 the landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident and his family.
  5. The evidence demonstrates the landlord proactively engaged with the managing agent when it became aware of the power outage. It sought clarification on the status of the repair as the day progressed and when necessary, it took action to arrange temporary accommodation. We have not seen evidence of an obligation within the lease agreement for the landlord to provide shared owners temporary accommodation in such circumstances. Nevertheless, in this case, the landlord’s arrangement of temporary accommodation was reasonable. The managing agent confirmed it could not restore the power for several days and was unable to provide temporary accommodation for residents itself.
  6. However, we have not seen evidence the landlord communicated effectively with the resident about the matter. There was a reasonable expectation on the landlord to have provided the resident with reassurance and clear communication about his options, including whether he should make his own arrangements for temporary accommodation or what support he could expect if the electricity was not restored that day. The evidence does not demonstrate the landlord was in communication with the resident again after his contact with it on 10 December 2021, until the following day when it provided him temporary accommodation. As a result, the resident was without communication or updates from the landlord about the situation for more than 12 hours.
  7. On 14 December 2021 the managing agent restored the electricity to the block. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord to report his appliances were not working following the power surge. The landlord advised the resident to make a claim to the building insurer or his own contents insurer. In response to this, the resident said he requested details of the building insurance and the service ticket related to the issue, from the landlord. The resident also said he had not received an acknowledgement of his complaint.
  8. On 11 January 2022 the resident submitted another complaint to the landlord. He said the staff member he spoke with on 10 December 2021 had disconnected his call after informing him they had no update from the managing agent. The resident also said he had not received the building insurance details he requested.
  9. On 26 January 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said the power outage was outside of its control and it was reliant on the managing agent and the electric distribution network operator to resolve the issues. It said it received notice in the evening that the fire brigade insisted the building was evacuated and the managing agent was not able to arrange temporary accommodation.
  10. It said managers on out of hours duty arranged temporary accommodation for the residents in the affected flats. It said it contacted and placed the affected residents in temporary accommodation by 12pm on 11 December 2021. It said its offer of temporary accommodation was a goodwill gesture and not something it would usually provide to its leaseholders. The landlord said it could not be held liable for the issue as it was the managing agent’s responsibility to complete repairs to the building. The landlord confirmed it had an out of hours process and on call maintenance teams 24 hours a day. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing the insurance information. It said the delay was due to a member of its staff being on a period of annual leave.
  11. An assessment of the landlord’s stage 1 response finds it explained the circumstances of the issue and its rationale for arranging temporary accommodation. It also clarified the managing agents responsibility to address the repair. The evidence shows the landlord took several weeks to provide the resident with the insurance information he requested in December 2021. Therefore the landlord’s apology for this delay was appropriate. However, the response did not address the resident’s concern about the landlord’s communication. Specifically, it did not acknowledge the resident’s report about the staff member disconnecting the call.
  12. On 27 January 2022 the resident escalated his complaint. He reiterated his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication with him after he reported the issue. The resident questioned whether the landlord provided advice or help to residents whose items were damaged due to the power issue.
  13. On 30 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said the electric distribution network operator was responsible for the power surge to the block. It said the managing agent was responsible for the repairs to the communal areas caused by the power surge. The landlord confirmed it evacuated the building and had a process for dealing with out of hours services as it would not expect a property manager to be available out of working hours. The landlord recommended the resident make a claim to his own contents insurance for the loss or damage of his personal items. It also suggested the resident submit a claim to electric distribution network operator as it said the operator was responsible for the power surge.
  14. The evidence shows the landlord’s stage 2 response conclusion the electric distribution network operator was responsible for the outage conflicted with the stage 1 response finding. The evidence also does not support the landlord’s stage 2 finding. The resident provided the landlord a report from the electric distribution network operator following its attendance on 10 December 2021. The report stated the operator found the fault was internal.
  15. It was reasonable for the landlord to clarify the expectation the property manager as only available during working hours. However, it did not address the element of the resident’s complaint concerning its communication on the matter.
  16. The lease agreement between the resident and the landlord states the landlord is not liable to the leaseholder for any failure or interruption in services not attributable to its fault. The power surge was not caused by any fault of the landlord and was not within the landlord’s repair responsibilities. Given this, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to submit a claim to his contents insurer for the damage to his appliances as a result of the loss of power. In addition to signposting the resident to its contents insurer, it may also have been appropriate for the landlord to have assisted the resident to initially make a claim to the managing agent, as the managing agent was responsible for conducting the repair on behalf of the freeholder.
  17. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
  18. We have found the landlord took reasonable action to arrange temporary accommodation for the resident. It also provided the resident withrelevant information on receipt of his report about the damage to his appliances following the power outage.
  19. However, we have found the landlord failed to provide the resident with updates as the situation developed, following the power surge. Particularly, once the resident made it aware his property was affected. The resident reported the issue to the landlord within its working hours. However, more than 12 hours after his report, the resident did not receive guidance or information from the landlord, about what action he could take while without electricity, until the landlord offered him temporary accommodation the following day. This communication delay results in a determination of service failure by the landlord.
  20. We have ordered the landlord pay the resident £100. This level of compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where a service failure may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident but has resulted in distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident raised his formal complaint to the landlord on 10 December 2021 as he had been without electricity for several hours. The resident submitted another complaint on 11 January 2022. In the second complaint he expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication following his report about the power surge. He stated the staff member he spoke with on 10 December had disconnected the call.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the complaint 26 January 2022. The resident escalated his complaint on 27 January 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 January 2023.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will log a complaint within 5 working days and then send its response within 10 working days of this. The policy states the landlord will provide a response at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. If the landlord is unable to provide a response within the timeframe set out in its policy at either stage, it will explain why to the resident and agree an extension.
  4. The evidence demonstrates there was a significant delay in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint. The landlord took 30 days to provide a response to the resident at stage 1. As a result the resident had to follow up with the landlord and submitted a second complaint on 11 January 2022. At stage 2, it took the landlord over a year to provide its response. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delays or offer any apology to the resident for the length of time it took to respond to the complaint at both stages of the complaints process.
  5. The stage 1 response was investigated by the staff member who was noted in the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
  6.  It was not appropriate for the member of staff to investigate the complaint which concerned their own actions. This undermines the fairness and impartiality of the complaints process. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made. In this case the landlord’s stage 1 response was not in accordance with the expectations of the Code.
  7. Overall we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not acknowledge or offer any redress for its failure to provide a response in accordance with its complaints policy. Furthermore the landlord’s stage 1 response was not in line with the expectations of the Code and involved a member of staff investigating their own actions.
  8. In recognition of the service failure we found in the landlord’s handling of the complaint we have ordered the landlord pay the resident £70 compensation. This in line with our remedies guidance and is in recognition of the impact of the delay in the landlord’s responses to the complaint and its failure to provide an impartial stage 1 response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure:
    1. In the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a power surge at the property.
    2. In the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to pay the resident £170. This comprises:
    1. £100 in recognition of the potential impact on the resident as a result of its response to his report about the power surge.
    2. £70 in recognition of the potential impact on the resident as a result of its complaint handling.
  2. The compensation we have ordered should be paid directly to the resident and should not be used to offset any arrears the resident may have or to a service charge account. Once the payment has been made the landlord is to provide us with conformation.