London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202409624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409624

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 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 to the resident’s windows.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident first reported a draught coming through their windows in February 2020.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on, or around, 4 September 2022. They were unhappy that the landlord had refused to fit draught excluders to their windows. They said that the local council had told the landlord that it must fit them. They were also unhappy the landlord had not told them when it would complete the repair of their windows.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 November 2022. It said it was the resident’s responsibility to fit draught excluders. It said it had chased its contractor for an update on the window repairs. It apologised for any upset and inconvenience. It said as a goodwill measure it would send the resident a £50 voucher so they could buy draught excluders.
On 11 November 2022 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2. They remained unhappy with the delays in the landlord repairing their windows. They said managers had never called them back and they were paying increased heating costs due to the condition of the windows.
On, or around, 30 December 2022 the resident moved out of the property. They stayed in temporary accommodation until they completed a permanent move to a new property in March 2023.
The landlord issued its final response on 18 July 2023. It apologised for how it had handled the repairs and for its communications with the resident. It offered £655 in compensation.
On 7 June 2024 the resident escalated their complaint to us. They did not consider the amount of compensation the landlord had offered sufficiently reflected their experiences. They were also unhappy the landlord had paid the compensation to their rent account and not directly to them.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In their complaint and communication with us, the resident said the situation had a detrimental impact on their, and their family’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows

On 19 February 2020 the resident reported a draught from their windows. The landlord arranged to attend on 21 April 2020. On 20 April 2020 it told the resident that it was suspending its normal repairs service due to COVID-19 restrictions.
The landlord’s repair policy confirms it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including windows. The policy states it aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have restricted its repairs service during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with government restrictions. However, had the government not imposed restrictions, the timing of the initial appointment would not have allowed the landlord to complete the repair within its stated timescale. It has not provided any explanation for its failure to arrange the appointment in accordance with its policy timescales.
On 9 July 2021 the landlord resumed its repairs service. It raised a new repair for several matters within the resident’s home. This included assessing the resident’s windows. It arranged to attend on 28 August 2021.
On 28 August 2021 the landlord told the resident it needed to rebook the appointment as its operative had to take emergency leave. It attended on 6 October 2021. The landlord said in its evidence to us that its operative did not report back anything specific about the windows. However, there is no information recorded in the evidence about what the operative assessed or what their findings were. This is evidence of a possible issue with the landlord’s case management.
The landlord does not appear to have taken any action to advance the situation after its attendance on 6 October 2021. It has not provided any explanation about how it had satisfied itself that this was a reasonable course of action or how the situation would be resolved for the resident. It also has not provided any evidence that it made the resident aware it did not intend to take any further action.
Neither of the appointments the landlord scheduled in 2021 provided it with sufficient time to complete a repair within its stated timescales. It has not provided an explanation for this discrepancy.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord raised a new repair for draughts. The information provided by the landlord suggests the resident had chased it on this date for an update about the situation. However, it is unclear from the repair record why it had raised the new repair. The landlord’s records show the repair was subsequently marked as ‘cancelled’. There was no rationale recorded for this in the landlord’s evidence to us. This is further evidence of issues with the landlord’s case management.
On 5 April 2022 the resident’s local council wrote to the landlord. The council said it had inspected the resident’s property in connection with its responsibilities under the Housing Act 2004. It said it had identified a category 2 hazard (Excess cold) in the resident’s property and that the landlord needed to carry out works to remedy this. The required works were to fit draught strips to the bedroom windows and to rectify the source of the cold and draught.
On 19 May 2022 the landlord raised an order for its contractor to overhaul the windows. Its records show it closed this as ‘completed no action’ on 17 June 2022.
The landlord assigned the repair to a different contractor on 16 July 2022. There is no evidence that it provided the resident with an explanation about the change of contractor or why there was a 1-month delay between closing and then re-raising the repair. The landlord’s records show this second repair was subsequently marked as ‘cancelled’. There was no rationale recorded for this in the landlord’s evidence to us. This is evidence that the landlord’s case management and communication with the resident was poor.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on, or around, 4 September 2022. They were unhappy that the landlord had refused to fit draught excluders to their windows. They said that the local council had told the landlord that it must fit them. They were also unhappy the landlord had not told them when it would complete the repair of their windows.
On 27 September 2022 the landlord raised an order to remedy reports of cold air coming through the windows. It inspected on 3 October 2022.
It attended again on 12 October 2022 and recommended that it overhaul the window gaskets. It arranged to attend again on 4 November 2022.
The landlord has not explained why it required repeat visits to the property and why it did not carry out the required following its inspection on 3 October 2022. This is further evidence of continued poor management and communication in its handling of the resident’s repair request.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord told the resident it was unable to obtain replacement gasket parts. It passed the matter to one of its contractors.
When the landlord was unable to obtain replacement gasket parts it was reasonable for it to consider alternative actions that it could take, including referring the matter to one of its contractors. It provided the resident with a £40 voucher for the missed appointment. This was a reasonable action for it to take.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 November 2022. It said it was the resident’s responsibility to fit draught excluders. It said it had chased its contractor for an update on the window repairs. It apologised for any upset and inconvenience. It said as a goodwill measure it would send the resident a £50 voucher so they could buy draught excluders.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that draught excluders are a resident’s responsibility. In line with this, it was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident it was their responsibility to fit draught excluders. The landlord went beyond what it was required to do in providing the resident with vouchers to buy them. It was appropriate for it to have apologised for the inconvenience it had caused and to have explained that it would hurry up the matter with its contractor.
The landlord’s response would have been better if it had explained what actions it had taken, if any, after receiving the council’s notice in April 2022. It should have also clearly explained why it felt its policy still applied despite the council advising it needed to fit draught strips. The failure to provide this information or to explain the repair delays to that point was a missed opportunity to improve transparency and rebuild the damage caused to the landlord and tenant relationship.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 11 November 2022. They said they had been reporting the issue with their windows for 2 years. They said the landlord had told them that it would repair the windows before April, but this had still not happened. They were unhappy that managers did not call them whenever they asked for this. They said they were paying additional heating costs due to the windows. They also said the cold in the property was making their family ill.
On, or around, 15 November 2022 the landlord arranged for a different contractor to inspect the windows. The contractor attended on 16 November 2022. On 18 November 2022 the contractor recommended replacing all the windows as the thermal break in the frames was not working.
On 22 November 2022 the landlord attended to draught proof any holes or gaps where cold air may be coming through. Its repair records show that the operative reported back that they could not find anything wrong with the windows.
On 30 December 2022 the landlord moved the resident out of the property. The evidence indicates the resident did not move back in at any point before starting a new permanent tenancy at a different property.
The landlord issued its final response on 18 July 2023. It provided a summary of the events that had taken place since February 2020. It accepted there had been failures in its handling of repairs and its communications with the resident. It said the resident needed to make any personal injury claims through its Insurance Team. It explained it would not be able to reimburse for additional heating costs as it would need to see comparable bills following it having replaced the windows. It offered additional compensation.
The summary the landlord provided was largely a factual list of events in date order. It did not clearly explain why there had been delays in it carrying out the needed repairs. This was another missed opportunity to improve transparency and rebuild the damage caused to the landlord and tenant relationship.
The landlord’s explanation that the resident would need to make any personal injury claims to its Insurance Team was in line with its compensation policy. It was reasonable for it to have provided the resident with details on how they could make a claim.
The landlord’s explanation for why it could not give specific reimbursement for additional energy costs was reasonable. Without bills showing the heating costs for a comparable period before and after the windows were replaced, it would be difficult to determine whether there had been additional costs and, if so, how much that had been. We have noted it said it had considered additional costs as part of its general compensation offer. This was a reasonable compromise to resolve this matter.
In conclusion, it is clear from the available evidence that there were several unexplained delays in the landlord’s handling of the required repairs. There was evidence of poor management of the repairs, which resulted in multiple visits for the same issue. There was poor communication throughout. The landlord has accepted its failures as part of its complaint responses. It apologised for these failures and offered £575 in compensation. This comprised:
1. £500 to apologise for any distress and inconvenience that it may have caused, the impact on the resident’s family’s health, any additional heating costs, and any missed appointments.
2. £75 to apologise for the lack of communication with the resident.
When a failure is 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 the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
By moving the resident out of the property the landlord resolved the resident’s ongoing issue with the windows. It was fair for it to have acknowledged and apologised for its prior failures.
We have assessed whether the landlord’s compensation offer was sufficient to put right the impact of its failures on the resident. We have limited this assessment to the point when the resident moved out. This is because it was not possible for further detriment to occur once they no longer lived at the property.
The matters considered by the landlord when determining the level of compensation were in line with its policy. We accept that the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident. We also acknowledge the impact was likely to be more than minimal and lasted over a period of several years. The landlord’s offer was at a similar level to an award we may have considered making in line with our remedies guidance. We therefore consider that the landlord’s offer was a satisfactory resolution to the complaint.
For the reasons given above, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the repairs to the resident’s windows.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint and issued its response within the timescale set out in its policy.
The resident escalated their complaint on 11 November 2022, but the landlord did not issue its final response until 18 July 2023. This was a period of 171 working days and significantly outside its timescale of 20 working days to reply as set out in the landlord’s policy. While the delay was significant, we are mindful that most of it occurred after the resident had moved out of the property. We consider this was likely to have reduced the level of impact to the resident.
The landlord did acknowledge the failure. It explained the reason for the delay and that it was working to improve its service. It apologised and offered £80 compensation. This amount is consistent with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failing by the landlord.
The resident has raised concerns about the landlord paying the compensation to their rent account. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will offset payments against any debt owed to it by a resident, including rent arrears. The resident has confirmed to this Service that in July 2023 they were in rent arrears. The landlord’s decision to pay the compensation to the rent account was therefore in line with its policy.
For the reasons given above, the Ombudsman considers the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.