London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202344799)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344799

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 October 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 response to the resident’s:
1. concerns that she was responsible for communal electricity costs.
2. complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in June 2016. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident and a neighbouring flat (the neighbour) share a communal area which has a light and a fire alarm that are connected to the resident’s electricity meter.
On 8 January 2024 the resident raised a complaint. She said:
1. she had raised concerns that she was paying for the communal electricity, but the landlord had not responded. She said she paid for electricity on a pay-as-you-go meter, and the prices had recently increased.
2. the landlord had told her it would raise a job to separate the meter and reimburse her for communal electricity costs.
3. she also wanted a refund of any service charges she had paid for communal electricity. She wanted the neighbour to contribute towards communal electricity costs.
Around 22 January 2024 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy that she had been paying the communal electricity costs since the start of her tenancy as it was not in her tenancy agreement. She said the communal light was “constantly” on, and she had asked it to change this. On 29 February 2024 she told it she was unhappy with its complaint handling. She said she was worried about a potential fire safety risk if she had to top-up her electricity for the fire alarm to work. She said she wanted to be exempt from paying the communal electricity as she had been solely paying this for years.
The resident contacted us and on 7 March 2024 we asked the landlord to issue a complaint response. On the same day, the resident told the landlord the issue was impacting her mental health. It issued a final complaint response on 28 March 2024 and said:
1. it was sorry for not letting the resident know that she would pay for the communal electricity on her meter at the start of her tenancy. It apologised for not resolving the issue sooner and said she should not have been responsible for the communal electricity.
2. it had calculated the cost of electricityfor1 light to be £5 per month. It said this would also cover the cost of the electricity the fire alarm used, which it said was negligible. It provided a link to an energy costs calculator.
3. it would reimburse her £460 (£5 per month from June 2016 until February 2024) and it would pay £5 per month annually going forward.
4. it would separate the meter to reflect the communal electricity usage.
5. it would not instal a communal meter as this would be too expensive and residents would have to cover these costs.
6. in relation to service charges, it expressed “regret” for the “financial burden” and said it would resolve this.
7. it offered a total of £645 compensation including £460 reimbursement for electricity costs, £170 for its complaint handling, and £15 for time and effort.
8. it set out learning for the substantive complaint.
9. it apologised for not issuing a stage 1 response and said the resident could contact the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident referred her complaint to us again. On 2 April 2024 she told the landlord she thought she spent more than £5 a month on communal electricity as the light was “constantly” on. She said she thought the landlord had not considered potential changes in electricity prices. She asked it to complete works to ensure communal electricity use was accurately measured. She asked whether the neighbour would have to pay towards the communal electricity.
The landlord issued a further complaint response on 12 July 2024. It confirmed its decision of 28 March 2024. It said the reimbursement of £5 a month had been decided by experts, and it may revise these in future.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response and said it has caused her distress. She wants increased reimbursement for the communal electricity costs and the landlord to accurately measure communal electricity use.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

The resident raised a data protection issue as part of her complaint. We have not investigated this or included the compensation offered for this in our report. This issue may be better suited to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The resident raised a separate complaint with the landlord about its response to her requests for it to change the communal light/ sensor. We will not be investigating this complaint. However, we will be assessing the landlord’s response as it relates to her concerns that she was responsible for communal electricity costs.

Communal electricity costs

The resident’s tenancy agreement does not include any terms about communal electricity costs. The landlord’s repairs policy said all electrical installations and appliances in communal areas were its responsibility. The landlord did not inform the resident that the communal light and fire alarm were connected to her meter at the start of her tenancy.
In its complaint response of 28 March 2024, the landlord:
1. apologised for not letting the resident know that she was responsible for communal electricity charges at the start of her tenancy, which was reasonable.
2. offered to reimburse her for the communal electricity costs. This was in line with its compensation policy which said it may reimburse a resident if they are out of pocket and have no choice to pay for something due to a landlord’s service failure or inaction.
3. provided a link to a website with a calculator that requires the user to input values including the hours used per day, power in watts and price of energy. However, it did not confirm the values it had input to reach a figure of £5 per month. This was unreasonable as the resident could not know how the landlord had arrived at this figure.
4. said it would separate the meter to accurately reflect the communal electricity use. It did not separate the meter, update the resident on this, or clarify whether it could accurately measure the cost of communal electricity in another way. This was not in line with its complaints policy which said it would monitor progress until outstanding actions were completed.
5. said it would reimburse the resident £5 per month from February 2024. It did not continue to reimburse the resident on an ongoing basis or updated the resident about this. This was despite agreeing it would do so annually from June 2024. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes.
6. could have been clearer in its response to the resident’s concerns about service charges. The landlord has confirmed to us that the resident did not have a service charge for communal electricity. Therefore, its position of regret in relation to service charges and a promise to resolve the issue may have been confusing. It would have been helpful for the landlord to confirm its position on service charges and clarify that neither the resident nor the neighbour paid a service charge for communal electricity.
7. explained why it would not instal a communal meter, which was reasonable.
8. did not respond to the resident’s concerns about a potential fire safety risk if she was unable to top-up her electricity meter. This was unreasonable.
On 3 April 2024 the landlord told the resident it would not be fair to make the neighbour pay towards communal electricity costs as it was reimbursing the resident for them. It told her the relevant maintenance service charges were shared equally between her and the neighbour. Its position was reasonable and in line with its service charges policy which said service charges covered the maintenance and servicing of communal areas and it may choose not to recover costs of services.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s reports that the communal lighting was on “constantly” from January 2024 and the light/sensor was not adjusted for more than 6 months after this. The landlord said on 3 April 2024 that experts had calculated the communal electricity costs to be £5 a month, in line with “established industry standards”. It repeated this position in its complaint response of 12 July 2024.
The landlord did not meaningfully respond to the resident’s concerns about the impact of the light being “constantly” on, or the cost of the communal electricity. It would have been reasonable for it to confirm whether it had considered this in its calculations. It also failed to give the resident an opportunity to provide evidence of the costs, which was unreasonable.
In its complaint response of 12 July 2024, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for an update on the ongoing reimbursement of electricity costs. Nor did it acknowledge or apologise for not updating her about this after promising to do so. This was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to provide a clear calculation of the communal electricity costs or engage with the resident’s concerns about this. It showed some learning and apologised for the delay in dealing with her concerns but did not respond to all her concerns or complete the actions promised in its complaint response. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failures of service identified and the distress and inconvenience likely caused. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she was responsible for communal electricity costs.
In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £220 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It may deduct the £15 compensation for time and effort it offered in its complaint response from the total compensation if it has already paid this. We have also ordered the landlord to pay the £460 reimbursement of communal electricity costs offered in its complaint response if it has not already paid this.
We have ordered the landlord to set out how it calculated the cost of communal electricity, respond to the resident’s concerns that the communal light was on “constantly,” and give her an opportunity to respond to this and provide evidence of the costs. We have also ordered the landlord to confirm whether there are any measures it could take to accurately measure the cost of communal electricity and respond to the resident’s concerns about a potential fire safety risk. We have ordered it to pay or confirm its position on the ongoing reimbursement since February 2024.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy was in line with the Complaint Handling Code 2022 and said it should:
1. log complaints within 5 working days.
2. send a written decision within 10 working days of logging a complaint.
3. send a stage 2 decision within 20 working days of an escalation request.
4. inform residents and explain why, if it extended its complaint response timescales.
5. have a 2-stage complaint process and not escalate a complaint until it provided a stage 1 decision.
6. provide a detailed explanation if it would not escalate a complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 January 2024, 10 working days after her complaint. This was not in line with the Code’s timescale of 5 working days. It said it would issue a complaint response by 2 February 2024. It did not stick to this timescale or explain the further delays, which was not in line with its complaints policy.
On 22 January 2024 the resident told the landlord it had misunderstood her complaint and asked it to correct its complaint definition. The resident requested a call back on 6 February 2024. She contacted the landlord online to request an update and reiterate that it had misunderstood her complaint. She requested an update again on 29 February 2024 and received no response. The landlord’s lack of clear and timely communication and updates in its complaint handling was a failure of service.
The resident contacted us as she had not received a response from the landlord. On 7 March 2024 we asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. That the resident had to involve the Ombudsman was unreasonable. The landlord issued a complaint response 46 working days after its acknowledgement. This was not in line with its complaints policy timescales.
The landlord issued its first written response as a final response with no right to escalate the complaint within its internal complaints procedure. This was unreasonable and not in line with the 2-stage complaints process set out in its complaints policy and the Code. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation for its complaint handling mistakes and not issuing a stage 1 response. However, its assessment of its complaint handling was unclear, and did not acknowledge all its complaint handling failures.
The landlord issued a further response on 12 July 2024, 68 working days after the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its initial response. This was an unreasonable delay. It did not explain why it was issuing a further response and the resident confirmed that this caused her confusion.
The landlord unreasonably delayed in its complaint handling and the resident had to involve the Ombudsman. Its initial 1-stage complaints process restricted her right to respond within its internal complaints procedure and its complaint handling communication was unclear and delayed.
Despite offering redress to try and put things right and acknowledging that it had not issued a stage 1 response, the landlord did not identify all its failures or show any learning from its complaint handling. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a total of £270 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It may deduct the £170 offered in its complaint response from the total compensation if it has already paid this. We have also ordered the landlord to set out its learning.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she was responsible for communal electricity costs.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. provide a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report, including its complaint handling failures. It must set out what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
3. pay the resident a total of £950 compensation, made up of:
  1. £220 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she was responsible for communal electricity costs.
  2. the £460 it offered in its complaints process to reimburse her for the communal electricity costs between June 2016 and February 2024.
  3. £270 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  4. the landlord may deduct the £645 it previously offered in its complaint responses if it can provide evidence it has already paid this.
4. pay the resident (and/or confirm its position on) the ongoing reimbursement since February 2024 that it agreed to in its complaint response of 28 March 2024.
5. write to the resident and:
  1. clearly set out how it calculated the cost of communal electricity, including the values used in its calculation, if appropriate.
  2. respond to her concerns that the communal light was on “constantly” and confirm whether this impacts its calculation and why.
  3. give her an opportunity to respond to its calculation and invite her to provide evidence of the electricity costs.
  4. confirm whether there are any measures it could take to accurately measure the cost of communal electricity. It must confirm whether it will implement these and why.
  5. respond to her concerns about a potential fire safety risk if she is unable to top-up her electricity meter.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of the date of this report.