London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202406109)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406109

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 July 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 repairs at the property.
The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord’s since 1999. The property is a 1-bed ground floor flat in a converted house.
On 20 July 2023 the resident told the landlord concrete was falling off the building and plaster was coming away on the external wall.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 April 2024. She said she felt the building was crumbling and it needed repairs. The resident also said the windows needed to be replaced.
On 2 April 2024 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. It said:
1. It attended the property and found a “minor crack” in the resident’s kitchen window. The landlord received a quote for this work, but the repair review panel had decided it would not be carried out. It was “not required” in line with its repairs policy.
2. There were small sections of paint flaking off the external walls and this was not a health and safety concern. There was no danger, and no further work was required.
3. A referral had now been made to the landlord’s programmed works for the resident’s property to have its windows replaced. Her property would be put on a waiting list, and she would be contacted when the repair would take place.
4. It offered the resident £90 compensation broken down as:
  1. £60 compensation for repair delays.
  2. £30 for complaint handling.
On 9 April 2024 the resident told the landlord she did not think it had taken her concerns seriously.
On 9 May 2024 the landlord sent a further stage 1 response. It said:
1. It completed the repair to the brickwork underneath the resident’s kitchen window.
2. The external paintwork repair would be picked up under cyclical works.
3. It increased the offer of compensation to £130 broken down as:
  1. £80 compensation for repair delays.
  2. £50 for complaint handling.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 June 2024. She said she was unhappy the external paintwork repair would be classed as cyclical.
On 27 August 2024 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It said:
1. Repointing the brickwork beneath the kitchen at the resident’s property had been completed 3 months earlier.
2. Her building would be put on a waiting list for the windows to be replaced. The resident would receive a letter when the repair was due to take place in that financial year.
3. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It found it had inspected and carried out repairs in line with its policy.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to us. She said the external paintwork and replacement of windows are still outstanding repairs. The resident would like the landlord to complete these for her complaint to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her correspondence with us the resident told us about other repairs such as damage to the communal stairway carpet that has not yet been through the landlord’s complaints process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 27 August 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before our involvement.
The resident told the landlord she had been raising the same repairs since 2017. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on what occurred. The Scheme says we may not consider issues not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint, within a reasonable period of the matters arising. As such, this report will centre on the landlord’s handling of issues from 20 July 2023 when the resident raised the repairs which led to the complaint. Any reference to events before this time are for context only.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property

The resident contacted the landlord on 20 July 2023. She raised the following concerns:
1. The landlord told her 6 years ago that exterior works at the property were due within the next 5 years.
2. Every winter “chunks of concrete” fell off the roof.
3. The kitchen window frame at her property was “rotten”.
The landlord’s repairs log shows it attended the property on 11 December 2023. It recorded no evidence of large chunks falling off the building. The landlord said the front of the building had “normal flaking paintwork” which was “worn but fine”. It asked the resident to send in any photos of debris or brickwork she was concerned about if the issue worsened.
The landlord inspected a repair to the resident’s kitchen window frame on 19 December 2023. On 18 January 2024 it attended and recorded the windows were “rotting”. The landlord said the wood was soft and needed replacing. The resident said during this visit she was told the windows at the property would be replaced.
The landlord inspected the building again on 6 March 2024. It recorded no signs of “brickwork damage” to the front of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy says the following:
1. It is responsible for the maintenance and repairing of windows, roofs, external walls and brickwork at its properties.
2. The landlord will not undertake repairs to hairline cracks to external walls, brickwork or plaster. Cracks must be bigger than 5mm.
3. When windows need replacing due to age, they will be replaced through a planned programme of works.
4. External decoration will also be carried out through a cyclical planned programme. This is normally every 5 years, but it can decide on longer intervals.
5. It will aim to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days.
On 2 April 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. External plaster was falling off the building and she felt it was crumbling.
2. The resident was told 3 months previously that the windows at her property would be replaced.
3. The repairs were a health and safety risk.
4. To resolve the complaint, she would like new windows and for the landlord to repair the exterior of the property.
The landlord responded on 2 April 2024 at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. It explained it would not repair an external crack by the resident’s kitchen window that it found during a visit. It said the work was not required and this was in line with its repairs policy. However, it failed to explain to the resident why it decided not to do the repair. This was unreasonable of the landlord.
The landlord’s repairs policy explains how the window replacement scheme works; it was reasonable of the landlord to explain this to the resident. However, it failed to recognise she waited around 4 months longer than the timeframe in its repairs policy for the landlord to assess the window repairs. The landlord noted there was no referral for the property to the window scheme when the resident raised her complaint. This was completed once the complaint was raised. It failed to complete the referral on the day of the inspection as it advised the resident.
The landlord also delayed by around 4 months in assessing the safety of the building. There is no evidence the landlord did anything more than a visual inspection from street level. It would have been difficult to see if chunks of concrete were missing from the roof as reported by the resident. The evidence shows the resident had photographs of debris that she said were chunks of concrete fallen from the building. There is a discrepancy between what the resident feared and what the landlord described as paint flaking off the building. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do more to reassure the resident. This and the landlord’s delay in attending the property to assess the repairs caused the resident distress and inconvenience. This was unreasonable of the landlord.
On 9 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She gave a breakdown of repairs at her property for the last 7 years. The resident said she felt the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously.
The landlord responded on 16 April 2024. It said the following:
1. Photos provided show paintwork flaking at the property and this will be completed through the cyclical decorations.
2. It would raise an inspection for repointing under the resident’s window.
The landlord’s repairs log shows it repaired the brickwork beneath the resident’s kitchen window on 17 April 2024.
On 9 May 2024 the landlord sent a further stage 1 response to the resident and increased the offer of compensation for delays to repairs to £80.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can award discretionary compensation when a mistake or failure has caused a resident distress or inconvenience. It does not give specific amounts but says it will consider all factors when deciding.
The landlord’s further stage 1 response shows it reconsidered the paintwork repair of the building and the crack near the resident’s kitchen window. In the first stage 1 response it said it would not repair the crack by the kitchen window; however, it then completed the repair. The landlord said no further work was needed on the paintwork initially, but then said the repair would be picked up as cyclical. Again, the landlord did not recognise the repair delays the resident experienced or the change of response. There was also no evidence the landlord inspected the roof of the property. This lack of investigation and inconsistency from the landlord caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord classed the window replacement and external painting of the property as cyclical works. This was in line with as per its policy and therefore appropriate. However, the resident said the landlord told her around 6 years ago external works would be completed at the property. If it made the decision to extend the time for the external decoration, then it could have explained this to the resident and told her when the next one was likely to take place.
On 6 June 2024 the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord. It recorded that she was unhappy the repair for the external repainting of the property was classed as cyclical.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 27 August 2024. We found the landlord’s response at stage 2 failed to:
1. Recognise the delay of around:
  1. 3 months to complete the repair to brickwork beneath her kitchen window.
  2. 4 months for it to attend and assess repairs to the building.
  3. 3 months to put the property on the waiting list for replacement windows.
2. Fully investigate and respond adequately to the health and safety concerns the resident raised.
3. Respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction that the external paintwork was classed as a cyclical repair.
These failures were unreasonable of the landlord and led to distress and inconvenience for the resident.
When a failure is identified our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We take into account whether its offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes. As well as our own guidance on remedies.
In summary, the landlord acted reasonably by inspecting the property and arranging for it to be on the list for cyclical works for external paintwork and new windows. However, it failed to address the resident’s concerns fully and recognise the delays and inconsistency in handling the repairs. The resident was worried the building was a health and safety concern. The landlord attended the property to carry out inspections however due to its delays and miscommunication the landlord’s efforts to reassure the resident were undermined.
The landlord’s failure to follow its repairs policy, communicate effectively over the resident’s concerns and offer appropriate redress to put things right leads to a determination of maladministration. An order of £600 compensation has been made below. This award has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance where there has been a significant impact on the resident. And they have been adversely affected by the landlord’s inability to acknowledge its failings. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On 2 April 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. It sent a response at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on the same day. This was within the landlord’s complaints policy of 10 working days. It offered the resident £30 for her time and effort in resolving the complaint.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of her complaint on 9 April 2024. However, instead of asking the resident if she wanted to escalate her complaint, the landlord sent a further stage 1 response to the resident on 9 May 2024. It increased the offer of compensation for complaint handling to £50.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a 2 stage complaints process. Our Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code) also states that a complaints process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances. This would make the complaints process unduly long for a resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to ascertain if the resident wished to escalate her complaint. Instead, it sent a second stage 1 response which was a breach of its policy and the Code and therefore inappropriate of the landlord.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to take her complaint to stage 2 on 10 June 2024. It said it would respond as soon as possible.
We contacted the landlord on 10 July 2024 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint escalation no later than 18 July 2024.
On 27 August 2024 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. This was around 38 working days longer than the 20 working days for a stage 2 response in its complaints policy. It did not acknowledge the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2.
In summary, the landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy. Its stage 2 response was delayed and required our intervention. It sent 2 stage 1 responses rather than fully considering and addressing the complaint in its first response. We found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. An order for £150 compensation is made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident with a written apology from a manager for the failures outlined above.
2. Pay the resident £750 compensation broken down as:
  1. £600 compensation for the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property. It may deduct £80 previously offered to the resident if this has been paid to her.
  2. £150 for its complaint handling. It may deduct the £50 previously offered to the resident if this has been paid to her.
The compensation balance must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account.
The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

Provide the resident with an update regarding the replacement of windows and the external paintwork at the property. This should include the details of what year the previous window replacement and external painting took place and a timeframe of when the repair is likely to happen.
Arrange to visit the property to assess any communal repairs needed.