London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202400842)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400842

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 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:
1. Reports of required repairs and antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the communal areas of the property.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat which is located on the third floor of a 5-storey block. The landlord, a housing association, is the freeholder.
The resident complained to the landlord on 17 October 2023. She said that the main entrance gate was continually broken, as were the corridor lights. She said that the entrance doors were also broken and strangers were coming in and smoking in the stairwells. The stairs had paint on them, there were holes in the walls, and the lift had been out of service for almost a year. She added that people were leaving unwanted bulky items in the communal areas.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 October 2023. It explained the actions it was taking to resolve each matter.
The date and detail of the resident’s escalation request is unknown.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 12 March 2024. It provided an update in relation to each issue and acknowledged there had been delays and poor communication. It offered £190 compensation which comprised £60 for its delayed complaint response, £80 for distress, and £50 for time and effort.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wants it to provide lasting repairs to the lift and communal entrance doors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us that she was selling her flat but the sale fell through in September 2023. She attributes this to the buyer visiting the property and finding the lift out of service, entrance doors broken, and the building being “in a state”. She asserts that this is due to the landlord’s negligence. She also told us that her insurance was void due to the building being insecure and her property had sat empty costing her £1,200 per month.
We appreciate that the failure of the sale would likely have been distressing for the resident. However, we have seen no evidence that she raised these matters as part of her original complaint. We are unable to consider matters which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. We have seen no evidence that the landlord has had an opportunity to respond to her assertions.
We are unable to determine if the landlord’s actions or inaction resulted in the failure of the property sale. This would be a matter for a court to decide. The resident may wish to seek advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE).

Reports of required repairs and antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The landlord provided limited evidence in this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. Our investigation has, therefore, relied on the evidence available.
It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. 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.
In the resident’s complaint she said that the lift had been out of service for almost a year. She added that the main gate was continually broken, there were holes in the walls, paint on the stairs, and corridor lights were not working. She stated that the communal doors were broken and there was a lack of security resulting in people entering the building. She added that residents were dumping large items in communal areas. She said she was shocked that the landlord thought this was an acceptable way to house its residents.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 30 October 2023, it explained that the lift was approved for major works in June 2023. It said that the work was scheduled to start on 31 October 2023 and expected to complete in the first week of November 2023. It said that some if the issues she reported were due to the lift being out of service and it would be able to resolve these once it completed the lift refurbishment.
We appreciate that the lift being out of service would likely have been frustrating and inconvenient for the resident. Although, she told us that she was no longer living at the property at the time of her complaint.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it attended 11 times between January and June 2023 to repair the lift. Its records show that it completed repairs often the same or next day in line with its repair policy timescales. It was reasonable for it to commence refurbishment of the lift given the frequency of breakdowns. It should be noted that with any major work, such as this, it is not unusual for there to be some delays. Landlords will generally tender for largescale or costly work which follows a prescribed process. It may also have to follow its consultation process where there are homeowners in the building.
The landlord said the that the main communal gate was subject to 2 services each year in January and July, along with an annual risk assessment. It stated that the gate was fit for purpose and no risks were detected at the time of the service. Its response is supported by its contractor’s service record which says that they attended on 20 January 2023 and found the gate to be in good working order.
The landlord explained that there had been 7 reports about the gate over the past 18 months. This included 1 instance where it found no fault, 3 instances where it replaced perishable parts such as batteries, 1 instance where the gate was damaged, and 2 instances where there was an error which required a reset. It said it understood the frustration and found no long-term faults but would monitor this. Its response was appropriate and demonstrates that it investigated its repairs history and attended to repair the gate following each report.
The landlord said that prior to the resident raising her complaint, its contractors attended but they were unable to complete repairs to the walls. This was due to being unable to carry heavy equipment up the stairs as the lift was out of service. It completed some maintenance to the walls but this was not near her home. It said this would be addressed following the lift repairs.
We appreciate that the holes in the walls may have been unsightly, however, this likely caused no significant detriment given they were in a communal area. Its response was, therefore, reasonable.
The landlord said that it instructed its caretaker to remove dumped items. Due to the lift being out of action, they removed all of the items they were able to carry. It had not removed some of the larger heavier items but would arrange this after completing the lift repairs.
While we appreciate it would have been challenging for the caretaker to remove larger items, the landlord failed to consider any health, safety, or fire risks in leaving items in the communal areas which is a failing. It could have sourced specialist contractors to remove the items in the interim while it completed the lift repairs. It could also have written to all residents to remind them of their obligations in appropriately disposing of unwanted items.
The landlord said that it instructed its caretaker to replace the broken lights which they did. Its neighbourhood lead was attending that day and would again check all lights. This was reasonable and demonstrates it was continuing to inspect the property.
The landlord stated that there was wiring connected between the lift and main entrance door. Due to the lift being out of service, this resulted in the main door not working. Once it completed the lift repairs it would expect the main door to operate effectively. It asked the resident to report any threatening behaviour by strangers entering the block to the police and notify its neighbourhood housing lead.
The landlord’s response was reasonable in advising the resident to report threats to the police. However, it could have considered whether there were alternative measures it could have taken to secure the entrance doors. It did not demonstrate that it considered the safety and security of the residents in the block while waiting for the lift repairs to be undertaken which is a failing.
We have seen no evidence in relation to the resident’s escalation request or any further communication between the parties between October 2023 and March 2024. This suggests a record keeping failure.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it explained that the main gate did break frequently. This is in contradiction to its previous response which showed 7 reports in 18 months. That said, it raised the matter with its contractor to see if it could find a solution. This was reasonable and shows the landlord was seeking a lasting solution.
The landlord said that once its scheme improvement team completed work at another site, they had been asked to start work to complete general maintenance in the resident’s block. It said it had discovered holes on the wall which was caused by a resident with mental health concerns. It said that each time it repaired the walls, it happened again. While we appreciate this would have been a challenging matter for the landlord to manage, it would have been helpful for it to have explained what measures it was taking to resolve this with the individual to prevent repeat occurrences.
The landlord stated that the lift was out of action for close to a year. It found that it was unsafe and required major repairs which were now complete. It explained that it had offered residents the opportunity to move to alternative accommodation at the time where they were unable to physically cope without the lift. This shows that it considered any disabilities and vulnerabilities of its residents.
However, given the landlord’s acknowledgement that the lift was out of service for almost a year, it should have considered refunding any service charge element for the period where the resident had not benefited from the communal facility.
The landlord explained that it had removed the bulk of the rubbish. It is not known when it removed the items or how long they had remained in situ. As stated previously, it should have considered removing the items at the time of the reports to prevent any fire risk.
The landlord said that it asked its caretaker to re-check the lights although they had been working when it checked the week prior. It said that the lights were working on her floor but it identified 1 light directly outside her flat which it raised an order to repair. Its response demonstrates it was inspecting the communal areas regularly and listening to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord said that the main doors were working and explained that it had a security team that patrolled the area and blocks. They had dispersed some youths that were entering the block but this should no longer be the case. While this was a positive measure to take, it is not known whether this was in place in October 2023 when the resident reported her concerns.
The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay and lack of communication from the team dealing with the issues and also a delay in repairs of communal services. It apologised for the frustration and offered £130 compensation comprising £80 for distress and £50 for time and effort. It also demonstrated some learning from the complaint and said it had completed staff training on the importance of accurate record keeping.
The landlord’s apology and offer of redress demonstrates an effort to put things right. However, while it acknowledged the delays and communication failings, its compensation offer was not proportionate to the identified failings. We have, therefore, made an order for additional compensation.

Associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days and responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident raised her complaint on 17 October 2023 and the landlord responded on 30 October 2023, within its 10-working day complaint policy timescale.
It is not disputed that there was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response. However, we have been unable to determine the extent of the delay as the date of the resident’s escalation request is unknown.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 12 March 2024. It apologised for its delayed response and offered redress of £60. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing for a short duration which may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of required repairs and antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves it handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following actions within 4 weeks of the date of the report and provide evidence of its compliance:
1. Pay to the resident the sum of £330 broken down as follows:
  1. £130 offered in its stage 2 complaint response. This can be deducted if already paid.
  2. £200 for distress and inconvenience for failing to provide a temporary solution to the security of the building and consider any health and safety risks.
2. Calculate the period the lift was out of service and provide a refund for this element of the service charge. It must provide a copy of its calculation and evidence of the refunded amount.
3. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.

Recommendations

Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays to the resident the sum of £60 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.