London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202418210)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418210

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 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 balcony repairs.
The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has lived in the property, a 2-bedroom flat within a new build block, since 2018. He is a shared leaseholder, and the landlord is the superior leaseholder of the property. The local authority is the freeholder of the block, and they employ a managing agent.
On 11 November 2023 a panel of “slips” fell from the balcony within the same new build estate as the resident’s property. The slips were thin pieces of wall panelling made of brick tiles. Following this, the resident was advised not to use his balcony, along with the other residents in his block, as it had the same balcony design. The managing agent erected scaffolding to conduct remedial work.
The resident complained to the landlord on 9 February 2024. He said he was unhappy about the balcony repairs and the length of time he has been unable to use the balcony at his property.
On 23 February 2024 the resident said the landlord had not responded and so he requested to escalate his complaint.
The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 29 February 2024. It signposted the resident to an internal team who had been set up to deal with the balcony repairs. The landlord also said it would escalate the resident’s complaint.
On 30 April 2024 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered a total of £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused and its complaint handling.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to us. He told us the managing agent has said his balcony is now safe to use; however, he does not feel safe in doing so.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident also raised concerns that within the new build estate other balcony designs had safety issues and repairs. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the value of his property following the balcony safety issues. However, these matters were not brought to the landlord by the resident and therefore have not been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the concerns which completed the landlord’s internal complaints process on 30 April 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 landlord’s handling of balcony repairs

On 11 November 2023 a panel of bricks fell from a balcony in the resident’s complex. The materials fell to the ground below. Due to safety concerns the managing agent advised all residents with a similar design not to use their balcony. This included the resident.
The resident’s lease states the following:
1. The landlord will use “reasonable endeavours” to ensure the freeholder “observes and performs” its obligations as per the lease.
2. The leaseholder and landlord are not responsible for any structural parts of the balcony.
The lease between the freeholder and the managing agent of the block states the managing agent will repair and maintain the surface of any balcony within the premises.
The resident contacted the landlord and the managing agent of the property on 10 January 2023. He asked when the repairs to the balcony would be completed. The resident said he did not receive a response from the landlord to his email.
The resident complained to the landlord on 9 February 2024. He said he was unhappy he had been unable to use his balcony. He said he would like to know why:
1. The balcony was built with faulty materials.
2. Repair works were needed when there had previously been repairs completed to his balcony.
The landlord noted on its internal system it tried to contact the resident on 13 February 2024. It said the resident did not answer, but a follow-up email was sent to him on 15 February 2024. The landlord said it signposted the resident to an internal team who were managing the balcony repair enquiries. The evidence shows the landlord closed the complaint as it was not upheld and sent an email to signpost the resident instead.
The resident escalated his complaint on 23 February 2024 as he said there had been no contact from the landlord.
On 29 February 2024 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. It said the following:
1. It was sorry for the delays in repairing the resident’s balcony.
2. The landlord signposted the resident to its internal team who were managing the balcony repairs project.
3. It would escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process as per his request.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on managing agents states the following:
1. Landlords should be proactive in pursuing managing agents and freeholders to discharge their responsibilities. This would be for their own benefit as a leaseholder and for the benefit of their residents.
2. It also states landlords should:
  1. Be clear about complaint handling between itself and managing agents.
  2. Take overall responsibility for ensuring the complaints procedure is effective. This should be clearly communicated to residents to prevent confusion and delay.
A review of the stage 1 response shows the landlord took the reasonable step of providing the contact details for the balcony repair enquiry team. However, there is no evidence to show the resident’s questions were directed to the internal team, or the freeholder of the building. It had a contractual duty to escalate the resident’s concerns to the freeholder and managing agent, however there is no evidence to show it did this. It failed to take responsibility for the resident to get the answers to his questions and a meaningful reply to his complaint. This was unreasonable of the landlord.
Although the landlord was not responsible for the balcony repairs it could have clarified the relationship between itself, the freeholder and the managing agent and the different responsibilities, in its response to the resident. This would have helped avoid confusion regarding the different roles in completing the balcony repairs.
The landlord sent a response letter at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 30 April 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said the following:
1. It had been trying to resolve the repair delays with the managing agent and the developers. However, due to the complexity of the issue it was taking longer than expected. The resident would be contacted once a solution had been reached.
2. It offered £80 compensation broken down as:
  1. £30 for the inconvenience caused.
  2. £50 for time and effort.
The landlord’s compensation policy states the following:
1. It will consider offering discretionary compensation to acknowledge any distress and inconvenience caused. It will look at the duration of the impact and the seriousness of it. The policy does not specify amounts.
2. It will not award compensation when the service failure is “the responsibility of a managing agent or freeholder”.
A review of the landlord’s response at stage 2 shows it tried to put things right for the resident with an offer of compensation for the inconvenience and delay in resolving the balcony repairs. However, the landlord again failed to provide the resident with the answers to his concerns in his original complaint. There is no evidence to show the landlord discharged its contractual duty to escalate the matter to the managing agent. This was unreasonable of the landlord.
The resident said he was informed in June 2025 by the managing agent the repairs were complete, and his balcony was safe to use.
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. And 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.
In summary, the resident raised concerns about his balcony repairs and safety issues to the landlord. These repairs were the responsibility of the superior leaseholder and not the landlord. It had a dedicated internal team to respond to residents at the new build complex regarding the balcony repairs. The landlord signposted the resident to the internal team, acknowledged the delays he had been facing and offered compensation to put things right. However, the landlord did not ensure the resident got the answers to the questions he raised within his complaint. There is no evidence it took these questions and concerns to the managing agent and freeholder, and it had a contractual duty to do so. This was inappropriate of the landlord.
The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and managing agent in this case. The resident was unable to use his balcony for around a year and a half. He lived with the uncertainty of the balcony safety issues. This meant the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident was of a high impact. This amounts to a determination of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay £500 compensation. This is calculated in line with our remedies’ guidance. The circumstances of a failure that adversely affected the resident and the offer of compensation by the landlord previously was not proportionate to the failings identified in our report.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On 9 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. The evidence shows it sent a reply to him but this was not a formal complaint response. The resident further contacted the landlord on 23 February 2024. He said he wanted to escalate the complaint as he had not received a complaint response. The evidence shows the landlord closed down the complaint as it decided it was “not upheld”.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 29 February 2024. This was around 4 days longer than the 10 working days stated in its complaints policy for a response at stage 1. It apologised for the delay.
The landlord’s complaints policy states a decision must be sent to the resident at the end of the stage 1 process. Although the resident experienced a short delay in receiving his stage 1 response, the evidence shows if he had not chased his complaint he would not have received this. The landlord failed to process the resident’s complaint and closed it down without formally responding to him. This was not in line with the complaints policy and a failing by the landlord.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on the same day as its stage 1 response. It replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 30 April 2024. This was around 22 working days longer than the timeframe stated in the complaints policy. The landlord offered £20 compensation to the resident for the delay in complaint handling.
The evidence shows the landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint as per its policy at stage 1. The complaint responses at stage 1 and 2 were both delayed. The landlord’s offer of £20 compensation at stage 2 did not fully put right the failings identified. This leads to a determination of maladministration. An order for £100 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident is set out below.

Determination

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

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from a manager for the failures outlined above.
2. Pay the resident £600 compensation broken down as:
  1. £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in handling the balcony repairs. It may deduct £80 previously offered to the resident if this has been paid to him.
  2. £100 for its complaint handling. It may deduct the £20 previously offered to the resident if this has been paid to him.
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.