London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202341288)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341288

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 August 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and carbon monoxide detector.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy under an agreement dated August 2013. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom, second floor flat. It is occupied by the resident, her 2 children and a young grandchild. The resident said that some family members had health vulnerabilities.
Around 15 November 2023 the resident missed a scheduled gas safety check at her property. She rescheduled the appointment several times from November 2023 to January 2024 and on 4 occasions, contractors failed to attend. On 25 January 2024 the resident reported that her boiler had broken down, resulting in no hot water or heating and that there was a baby in the property. The resident stated that whilst repairing the boiler, a contractor discovered a carbon monoxide detector had expired and replaced it.
On 31 January 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. she wanted to know why her carbon monoxide detector had expired.
2. she felt this posed a health and safety issue and put her family at risk, and that she would not have been aware of it, were it not for the faulty boiler.
3. contractors had wasted her time by missing appointments 4 times.
On 5 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said that:
1. it attended the boiler fault on 26 January 2024 and ordered parts for repairs. On 31 January 2024 it repaired and returned the boiler to working order.
2. it ordered temporary heaters for the resident on 26 January 2024 and delivered these to her the next day.
3. the contractor report stated there was a carbon monoxide detector present and active in the premises.
4. the contractor agreed to pay the resident £60 for 2 missed appointments.
On 6 February 2024 the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said:
1. the contractor failed to attend 4 appointments between 30 November 2023 and 22 January 2024. She had also not received the £60 compensation.
2. she disputed the timescale in which the boiler fault was attended to.
3. the landlord provided her with only 1 small heater.
4. a contractor failed to apologise for arriving late to an appointment.
5. it was a legal requirement to have a working carbon monoxide detector, and not having one posed a health and safety concern.
6. the date on the gas safety certificate was 25 January 2024 however the landlord repaired the boiler on 31 January 2024. She wanted this corrected.
On 18 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said that:
1. there was service failure in booking the repair as a 24-hour callout instead of an emergency considering the vulnerabilities in the property. It had added indicators to ensure the resident would receive emergency repairs in future.
2. it hoped its suggestion of seeking NHS advice had reassured the resident that she did not have carbon monoxide poisoning.
3. claims for injury fell outside of its complaints process. It provided its insurance details.
4. the contractor had sent the resident a cheque for £90 to compensate for 3 missed appointments. It asked the resident to confirm receipt of this.
5. it had found insufficient proof that the resident received adequate notice for appointments; therefore, the contractor agreed to an additional £90 compensation for 3 further missed appointments.
6. a standard heater was issued to the resident; however, it should have provided it sooner.
7. it had issued a new gas safety certificate with the repair completion date.
8. it recognised that the resident tried many times to arrange the gas safety check and would raise this with the contractor as a service failure.
9. it had arranged a quote for a replacement boiler and inspection of the resident’s central heating installation.
10. it offered the resident compensation of £352, comprising of:
  1. £16 for a loss of hot water.
  2. £16 for a loss of heating.
  3. £40 for distress caused by failing to recognise vulnerabilities.
  4. £40 for inconvenience caused by failing to recognise vulnerabilities.
  5. £20 for the cost of the resident’s calls.
  6. £60 as a gesture of goodwill payment for electricity usage for 7 days.
  7. £40 for time and effort in getting the complaint resolved.
  8. £120 for poor complaint handling in its failure to recognise vulnerabilities.
In March 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that she felt insulted by the landlord’s compensation offer. She said her boiler broke down every year and that she felt the landlord had not fully addressed her carbon monoxide concerns. In later correspondence, she said that as an outcome she wanted a new boiler and for the landlord to take accountability for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the issues in the property had caused her stress. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial. As a result, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her reports.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and carbon monoxide detector

The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2022 impose a legal requirement on landlords to ensure that there is a carbon monoxide alarm in any room where there is a ‘fixed combustion appliance’, such as a boiler. The landlord must ensure that alarms are in working order on the day the tenancy begins and that alarms are repaired or replaced once found that they are faulty.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) states that landlords are responsible for annual gas safety checks of gas appliances it has provided.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states the following:
1. the landlord will ensure that it keeps all gas fixtures and fittings repaired and in working order.
2. residents must allow access for the landlord to carry out annual servicing of its appliances.
The landlord’s repairs policy states the following:
1. it is responsible for maintaining fixtures and fittings for gas and heating.
2. for vulnerable residents, it can adjust service standards where a delay would put the resident at risk.
The landlord gives the following timescales for completion of repairs:
1. routine day to day repairs: an average of 25 calendar days.
2. emergency, where there is an immediate danger: attend within 24 hours.
3. emergency out of hours: attend within 4 hours to ‘make safe’ and lower the immediate risk.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord would not usually pay compensation where it was not informed and could not reasonably have known of a failure. It says it may offer compensation:
1. where its failure has caused a loss of facilities and/or amenities beyond the agreed response times e.g. heating/hot water.
2. failure to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice – £20.
3. where a resident has suffered a loss of service / facility i.e. heating and hot water and they are not resolved within given timescales and service level agreements, the landlord will consider discretionary compensation.
On 16 November 2023 the resident missed a pre-scheduled appointment for a gas safety check. The landlord sent the resident a letter about the missed appointment and attempted further contact in November 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to make attempts to contact the resident regarding the missed gas safety check considering its HSE requirements.
On 7 December 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had attempted to reschedule the gas safety check, but contractors failed to attend. The resident contacted the landlord twice more in January 2024 to report further missed appointments. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about heating, hot water and energy in social housing (Cold Comfort) states that landlords should closely monitor contractors’ performance, including any missed appointments. The missed appointments likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. This was unreasonable.
On the evening of 25 January 2024, the resident told the landlord that her boiler had broken down, resulting in a loss of hot water and heating. The resident expressed concern due to having a baby in the property. The landlord advised the resident that it would attend within 24 hours. Given the vulnerabilities of a young child and that it was winter, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have prioritised the repair as an out of hours emergency in line with its repairs policy. That it did not, was inappropriate.
On 31 January 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. During the boiler repairs, a contractor identified that a carbon monoxide detector had expired and replaced it with a new one. The resident was unhappy that the detector had expired and said she felt that it had put her and her family at risk. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 5 February 2024. It said the contractor reported an active carbon monoxide detector present on the premises and that it was not aware of any previous issues with the detector.
The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2022 state that landlords must provide a working carbon monoxide detector in the premises at the start of a tenancy. There is no obligation for the landlord to routinely test the detector, however it must repair or replace it once aware of a fault. The landlord’s response to the resident was reasonable. However, it could have considered providing the resident with instructions to support her understanding of how, and how often, to test her detector and make sure it was in working order. There is no evidence to show that the landlord provided this to the resident. This was a failure in service.
In her complaint, the resident stated that contractors had wasted her time by failing to attend 4 gas safety check appointments. She also said that when she scheduled a morning appointment, a contractor arrived in the afternoon, causing her to miss a personal appointment. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that the resident would receive £60 compensation for 2 missed appointments. It is not clear why it only addressed 2 missed appointments. It also failed to acknowledge the resident’s personal appointment. The landlord’s response likely caused distress to the resident, which was unreasonable.
On 6 February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said contractors had missed appointments 4 times between 30 November 2023 and 22 January 2024, and that she had not received the £60 compensation. She also said that when the contractor arrived late on 31 January 2024, they did not apologise. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs states that when making appointments, landlords should provide sufficient notice to the resident and try to accommodate their preferred timing.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 March 2024. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction and asked her to confirm receipt of a cheque sent for £90 for 3 missed appointments. The landlord said it had found insufficient proof that the resident received adequate notice of appointments and apologised. It said it would award an additional £90 for 3 further missed appointments. The landlord acknowledged its poor customer service and a breakdown in communication. It also awarded £20 compensation to cover the cost of the calls the resident had to make. This was a reasonable attempt by the landlord to put things right.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident later informed us that she had not received either of the cheques from the contractor. However, there is no evidence to show that she reported this to the landlord as it had requested in its stage 2 complaint response. However, we have made an order for the landlord to investigate this to ensure the resident receives the cheques.
In the resident’s escalation request, she said that if contractors had attended the scheduled gas safety check appointments, the boiler would not have broken down. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs states that landlords should use complaints to provide feedback and drive improvements in services. They should identify what went wrong and make changes to prevent it happening again.
This Service is unable to determine whether a gas safety check would have prevented the boiler fault. However, considering the number of missed contractor appointments, the landlord should consider how it manages its repairs and any measures it can take to prevent similar issues reoccurring.
In her escalation request the resident raised the landlord’s response time to the repair. She disputed that it attended on the same day that she raised the report. The records show that the resident reported the boiler fault to the landlord at 8.29pm on 25 January 2024. The landlord gave the resident a 24-hour response time. It called the resident the following morning with instructions to try to repair the boiler. As that proved unsuccessful, the landlord attended the property just after 7.30pm on 26 January 2024. As that was within 24 hours of the resident’s report, the landlord’s attendance complied with the timescale given to the resident.
The resident noted that the landlord only provided 1 heater on 27 January 2024, which she felt was small. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident informed the landlord of her concerns around that time. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Cold Comfort states that where a problem with the heating or hot water cannot be resolved quickly, landlords should ensure that residents have access to temporary heating and provide a clear timescale for repairs.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that the heater was standard issue in such circumstances but recognised that it should have provided it sooner. It awarded the resident £60 payment to cover the running costs of the heater. It also awarded a total £32 for a loss of hot water and heating, making a total of £92 compensation. It is not clear if the landlord advised the resident of a repair time as she called the landlord to chase repairs on 29 January 2024. The evidence shows that the landlord completed the repairs on 31 January 2024. This was within its policy for day-to-day repairs, which was reasonable.
In the resident’s escalation request, she raised concerns that the gas safety check was overdue. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Cold Comfort states that it is good practice for landlords to schedule annual appointments for gas safety checks well before the due dates. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the resident’s gas safety certification was due to expire in January 2024. It had followed good practice by scheduling a new check in November 2023. Although the check did not take place until 2 months later, the landlord completed the check within 12 months. Therefore, the gas safety check was not overdue, and the landlord met its HSE obligations. This was appropriate.
The resident stated that the date on the Gas Safety certificate, of 25 January 2024, was wrong. She said that no one had attended her property on that date. A gas safety record states that the external gas meter at the resident’s property was capped for safety on 25 January 2024. However, it is unclear if the contractor was able to carry out a gas safety check on that date as it had not yet repaired the boiler.
With its stage 2 response, the landlord provided a new Gas Safety certificate dated 31 January 2024, which was when it completed the repairs. The landlord stated that it would investigate a no access report on 25 January 2024 and check how the contractors were able to cap the gas supply on that date. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an outcome to this action. This was unreasonable.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she expressed concerns again over the expired carbon monoxide detector and the potential risks this posed to herself and her family. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had suggested the resident seek NHS advice if she had concerns about carbon monoxide poisoning. It also provided its insurance details if the resident wished to make a claim about any symptoms or injury. Whilst the landlord gave the correct advice, it failed to explain the resident’s responsibility to test the detector and report any faults. This was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to consider the vulnerabilities in the property and correctly prioritise the boiler repair. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on heating, hot water and energy in social housing states that a lack of heating or hot water does not just cause discomfort but can be a risk to health and well-being. It says that landlords should be particularly aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond accordingly.
The landlord said that it had since added support indicators to the resident’s account to ensure she would receive emergency repairs in the future. It also offered compensation of £80for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing to recognise the impact on any vulnerabilities. This was reasonable.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it acknowledged that the resident wanted a new boiler after experiencing several boiler breakdowns. The landlord said that it had raised a work order to quote for a replacement boiler and to check the resident’s central heating installation. It said the outcome of this would determine if it would replace the boiler. The landlord’s records show that it raised the work order on 15 March 2024. A gas safety inspection on 2 April 2024 stated that there were no issues with the boiler. There is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated with the resident regarding any follow up to her request for a new boiler. This was unreasonable.
In summary, this investigation has found failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and carbon monoxide detector. The landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to consider vulnerabilities in the property, and the missed contractor appointments, and it made attempts to put them right. However, we have found maladministration because the landlord:
1. failed to explain the resident’s responsibilities to check the carbon monoxide detector and to report any faults.
2. failed to provide the resident with a follow up to its action regarding a no access report on 25 January 2024.
3. failed to provide the resident with a follow up to its action regarding a request for a new boiler.
The landlord offered a total compensation of £192 for the failures it identified in its handling of the resident’s reports. Whilst this was an attempt to put things right, this Service does not consider the offer proportionate to the distress and inconvenience likely caused by the additional failings we have found. After carefully considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation, making a total compensation of £342.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint response times mirror the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out good practice for a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that the process to receive an escalation and acknowledge it will take no longer than 5 working days.
The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 31 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 February 2024 and issued its stage 1 response to the resident 2 working days later, on 5 February 2024. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.
On 6 February 2024 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. The landlord failed to respond to the resident until this Service asked it to issue a stage 2 response on 11 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 12 March 2024. This was 25 working days after the request which was not in line with its policy. This was unreasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 March 2024, 4 working days after acknowledging her escalation request. Whilst the landlord provided its stage 2 response in line with its policy, the overall response time to the resident’s request was unreasonable. However, the landlord recognised this and apologised for the late response. It offered the resident £40 compensation for the time taken to get the complaint resolved. It also offered £120 for its poor complaint handling in failing to recognise the vulnerabilities in the household, making a total offer of £160 compensation.
The landlord failed to provide its stage 2 response within a reasonable time and required intervention from this Service. However, it offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers proportionate to any distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £160 is paid to the resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and carbon monoxide detector.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident with:
  1. an apology for the failures identified in this report.
  2. clear instructions on how, and how often, to test the carbon monoxide detector and how to report any faults.
  3. an update on the resident’s request for a new boiler.
  4. the findings of an investigation into a no access report from 25 January 2024, during which the resident’s gas supply was capped.
2. pay the resident £342 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and carbon monoxide detector. The landlord may deduct the £192 offered in its complaint responses if already paid.
3. investigate whether the 2 x £90 cheques for missed appointments were sent to the resident. These should be reissued if not previously sent, with a follow up to ensure the resident has received them.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

This Service recommends that the landlord considers how it manages repairs and any measures it can put in place to prevent multiple missed appointments.
We also recommend that the compensation offered of £160 for failures in complaint handling is paid to the resident if it has not already been paid.