London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202418846)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418846

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

2 September 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. Service charge concerns.
2. Queries on joint resident estate inspections.
3. Reports of repairs to the communal door.
4. Reports of repairs to the terrace lighting.
5. Concerns on restricted access to the fifth-floor terrace.
6. Concerns about cleaning to the communal areas.
7. Queries on the window cleaning contract.
8. Concerns about general communal repairs and garden maintenance.
9. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a block, and the landlord owns the freehold.
The resident along with a neighbour, appear to take the lead on raising any problems with the communal areas of the block on behalf of the residents. It is not clear if this is in an official capacity as lead of a residents’ association or in an unofficial capacity. It was not progressed as a group complaint.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 15 January 2024. She said there was ‘mismanagement’ of the estate and associated service charges. Her issues of concern included repairs, cleaning, security and gardening in the block. She also raised concerns about its tenancy monitoring service and lack of attendance at the site. She said residents were experiencing antisocial behaviour from intruders because of repair issues. She also said residents were being charged for repeated repairs which had not resolved the issues.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 February 2024. It did not agree that it had mismanaged its services. In relation to service charges, it recommended she take the first step of a legal request (section 22) for the relevant information. Its complaint response consisted of a 20-point action plan to address the resident’s concerns. These included repairs, cleaning, general upkeep and management of the block. It also specified prioritising a joint estate inspection with the block’s neighbourhood housing lead (NHL) in February 2024. It offered her £90 compensation. This consisted of £50 for the distress and inconvenience for poor communication and £40 for its complaint handling.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint at the end of February 2024 (exact date unknown). She said the landlord’s response was vague and incorrect on several issues. It had not carried out many of the actions in its action plan. In particular it had not arranged the estate inspection promised in February. She said they were also still struggling to contact their NHL generally. She wanted assurances that it would not charge residents for any repair resolutions and that it considered refunds of charges for repairs it had not resolved.
The landlord issued it stage 2 response on 6 April 2024. It apologised for several failings. These included delays in repairing the communal door and responding to the complaint. It also agreed to failings in addressing the communal terrace lighting, the window cleaning contract and not notifying residents about the closure of the fifth-floor garden terrace. It set out a further action plan to address the issues the majority of which were outstanding from its stage 1 action plan. It offered the resident £100 compensation. We have assumed this was in addition to its stage 1 offer of £90 as it did not specify it was inclusive. This made a total offer of £190. The £100 comprised:
1. Complaint handling £40 – duration 90 days.
2. Time and effort £40 – duration 90 days.
3. Distress and inconvenience £20 – duration 90 days
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to us. She said there were numerous estate management issues and longstanding repairs which it had not addressed for many years. She wanted refunds of service charges, compensation for the inconvenience and for 50 hours of time dealing with the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns in her complaint about being charged for:
1. unsuccessful repairs to the communal door.
2. abortive calls due to access issues with the boiler room.
3. Poor management service.
4. a 41 to 43% percentage increase in individual service charges.
The resident wanted a 6-year refund on service charges for this as an outcome. We will not normally assess complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges. This falls within the remit of the First-Tier tribunal. This aspect of the resident’s complaint will not therefore, form part of this investigation. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint she may seek advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service. We will consider the landlord’s communication about the charges and response to the resident’s queries.
The resident has stated some of the issues in her complaint have been ongoing since 2018. We will not usually consider complaints which, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising. This is because as the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those.
This investigation will therefore focus on relevant events within the year leading up to the resident’s complaint of 15 January 2024 and up to the final stage response, which was 6 April 2024. Any mention of events outside of these dates will be for context only.

Management of service charges

Under the terms of the lease the resident is required to refund the landlord a proportion of its outgoings that relate to the building. This would include costs for garden maintenance, cleaning and repairs.
In the resident’s complaint on 15 January 2024 she raised her concerns about paying service charges but not receiving the corresponding services. In response the landlord advised her to submit a section 22 request.
This request relates to section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It grants leaseholders the right to inspect supporting documents for service charge summaries provided under Section 21. Specifically, tenants can request access to accounts, receipts, and other documents that substantiate the service charge summary, allowing them to verify the charges. This was the appropriate advice for an initial challenge to service charges.
When the resident escalated her complaint in February 2024, she confirmed her intention to pursue a section 22 request. She highlighted that contractors attended many times and had failed to repair the communal front door. As a result residents had incurred costs for constant short-term fixes that they had not requested. She asked that it refund all the costs incurred to fix the door rather than making the door manual as residents requested.
The problem with the communal door was intermittent, which resulted in operatives attending to reports that had rectified themselves. We acknowledge this was frustrating, but the landlord acted on the report and incurred costs in doing so. Under the terms of the lease leaseholders in the block were required to reimburse it for a proportion of those costs.
The landlord’s response on 6 April 2024 reasonably agreed to audit works carried out on the entrance door. This was to consider whether a refund was appropriate. It said it would provide an update by the week commencing 8 April 2024. This showed it listened to the resident’s concerns about the repairs and had not dismissed the possibility a refund may be due.
The resident raised concern about the cost of the additional deep cleaning that it had agreed and asked if this could come out of the sinking fund. The landlord advised that deep cleans were part of the cleaning schedule so residents would not incur any costs unless it needed additional machinery.
The landlord went on to explain use of the sinking fund would not be appropriate for cleaning services as the cost was too low. Its purpose is to enable residents to spread the cost of major works (cyclical decorations, roof replacement, etc.) over a number of years. It said it set sinking fund contributions so that there is little or no shortfall in the balance when a major works invoice needs to be paid. It was appropriate for it to take the time to explain how this aspect of the charging worked to her.
In her escalation request of February 2024 the resident mentioned several residents having a problem with the hot water. She noted that the contractor had attended several times and were unable to gain access to the plant room. She said residents were now seeing charges for this.
The landlord apologised that it had not resolved the matter and explained that it was working with the contractor and the residents involved to fix the issue. It did not address her point about the charges for non-access. It is clear access to the pump room is solely the responsibility of the landlord. As such, it should not be charging residents for abortive calls when it is at fault in giving access to contractors. We have made a recommendation in this regard.
Overall, the landlord has showed that it has responded appropriately to her concerns and enquiries on service charges. It has given the correct advice, taken time to explain how charging works and agreed to consider her requests for a potential refund. If she is not happy to pay the service charge amounts or is unhappy with its decisions on refunds she can contact the Leasehold Advisory Service.

Estate inspections

In 2022 the landlord introduced a new approach to its housing management service. This included introducing NHLs and expanding the housing management workforce. It created a patch-based approach setting a manageable number of properties per patch at 550 homes.
Service information on the landlord’s website, states the aim of the change was to be visible in communities and have more time with residents. This was also to ensure that residents are involved in the way their homes and communities are managed.
The resident’s complaint in January 2024, said that she had not had a joint estate inspection with her NHL since September 2023. She said it was her understanding that they should be monthly. However, it had only invited residents to 3 in the past year, 1 of which the landlord cancelled.
The landlord’s service information states NFLs are responsible for estate inspections and that it may involve residents. This indicates that there is not an automatic process for residents to attend, but it can invite them.
The landlord’s response on 13 February 2024, apologised that there had been a lack of attendance. It attributed this to “conflicting scheduling” occasionally preventing the monthly catchups. It said despite this the NHL “had made every effort to meet with residents although primarily this had involved the caretaker”. Its response confirmed a monthly arrangement was in place, but it was also contradictory.
As an action at stage 1 the landlord said it was eager to schedule a meeting that month. The resident escalated her complaint partly because despite contacting it 3 times in February 2024, it had not arranged the estate inspection. She also questioned how it had made every effort to meet with them previously.
The landlord’s stage 2 response remained silent on its previous efforts to meet with the resident. It agreed regular estate meetings should take place and that it would arrange one. It did not, however, acknowledge it had failed to meet its stage 1 commitment to arrange a meeting in February 2024. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code (the Code) requires that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. It had not done so in this case which was a failing.
The landlord’s response committed to asking the NHL or appropriate line manager to arrange the next meeting. The Code requires it to set out what will happen and when. Eight months had elapsed since the last meeting and it had failed to organise the agreed February date. As such, it would have been appropriate to have scheduled the meeting in its response.
The landlord also agreed it should plan the estate meetings in advance ideally on a set date and time each month. It then recommended a minimum of bi-monthly estate meetings but said this was dependent on availability and resources.
The landlord quoting 2 frequencies for meetings was contradictory and unclear. If it was unable to commit to monthly meetings and felt bi-monthly was appropriate it should have set this out for the resident. This would be better than overcommitting, then failing to organise or cancel agreed monthly meetings because it did not have the time or resources. This had happened previously and was potentially impeding its service aim to improve its landlord/tenant relationships.
The resident’s escalation noted that neither her NHL nor her line manager could attend the call in March 2024 to discuss the complaint as both were on sick leave. She said she had not had contact from either regarding the complaint or the action plan. She said this was a common occurrence, which residents suspected was “due to a high stress culture” in the organisation and “due to an unmanageable workload and inadequate support”. She said residents “sympathised on a human level”, however, it must address the underlying issues to ensure residents receive a competent service.
The resident’s comments on the perception of the service were concerning. This might well have just been a misperception that the landlord could address through better communication. Alternatively, it may suggest its aim of improved engagement with residents through the changes it had delivered were not working. A key aim of complaint handling is to take learning from complaints to make service improvements. It could have been beneficial to have investigated this issue further, but it does not appear to have done so.
The resident also raised in her complaint that in addition to the landlord’s lack of attendance, its communal information sharing was also failing. The communal noticeboard contained outdated information. She understood that this was a result of the key being missing, which was identified 4 months prior.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it was aware of the issue and that the NHL had the matter in hand. Its stage 2 response in April 2024 confirmed that it had removed all outdated and irrelevant information. All the information displayed related to current developments and events affecting the block. It said it included its inspection schedule sheet, which would be signed and dated following all inspections.
If the landlord has provided a noticeboard purely to engage with residents and share information it should keep it maintained. For it to take over 4 months to locate the key and update it was remiss. However, it was not a service failure as it is not essential to provide this service.
Overall, landlord’s handling of the estate inspections had been poor. It had not shown that it was meeting its objectives to be more visible and spend more time with residents as its management service commits to. While it has shown a willingness to move matters forward at each stage with its action plan it did not fully acknowledge its failings. In not doing so it could not show that it had taken learning from the complaint and repeated the failings again.

Communal doors

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that in all of its homes it is responsible for:
1. The structure and exterior of the home.
2. Common entrance ways, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, and other communal areas, including estate grounds.
The resident complained in January 2024 that the communal doors, which had been a historical problem were still not working correctly. They broke down regularly, which resulted in intruders entering the block, criminal activity and safety concerns.
Evidence support that lapses with the security of the doors had led to youths and rough sleepers accessing the block. Incidents of intruders and stolen deliveries had been reported to the police. The resident submitted photographs taken by neighbours of hooded and masked youths in the communal areas of the block.
The landlord’s repair records show it had raised approximately 5 orders for faults with the communal doors in the 3 months leading up to the resident’s complaint. This confirms that it attended to reports in line with its repairing responsibilities.
The landlord’s response in February 2024 explained that despite reports of the doors not latching, this was intermittent and when contractors attended they did not find a fault. It said the NHL had also inspected when visiting the estate and found no faults. While this was frustrating for residents the intermittent nature of the fault was outside of the landlord’s control. As long as it was attending on reports it was acting appropriately.
The landlord advised in its stage 1 response that it was now currently exploring the option of changing the door from automatic to manual. The resident said that residents had repeatedly asked for it to change the door to manual and have it secured by a fob. While this may have been the case, it was for the landlord to decide at what point alternative options should be considered.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 13 February 2024, she said the communal door was swinging open too fast and there was no door stop. This was damaging both the wall and door. Records show that the landlord raised an order on 22 February 2024 but cancelled it.
In the landlord’s April 2024 response it said it visited to inspect the block on 3 April 2024. Following this it was exploring the installation of a hydraulic oil-based door closure, which would enable the door to slow down when opening. Residents would be informed of the outcome at the end of April 2024.
The landlord said it also put in place a temporary solution for a door stopper to prevent any further damage. It had raised an order for a permanent solution to be completed the week commencing 8 April 2024. It said it would repair damage to the walls by the end of April 2024.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the communal doors was appropriate. It is acknowledged that its efforts had taken time to fully resolve the issues with the doors. However, it attended to reports, put measures in place for temporary resolution, and identified more permanent solutions to consider in its action plan.

Terrace lighting

The resident complained about an ongoing issue with the lighting on the communal terraces which are located on the fourth and fifth floors of the block.
It was evident that the delay in resolving this was a combination of a fault with the lighting and issues with the contractor allocated to complete the works. The landlord had raised 9 works orders between March 2023 and January 2024 without resolution. Works orders raised in July and September 2023 were not executed by the contractor as per its instructions.
The NHL appropriately raised a formal complaint about the failure to complete the works with the contractor on 24 January 2024. She highlighted the health and safety implications of failed lighting and the impact of continued attendances without resolution on the leaseholders.
The complaint led to an improved response from the contractor. They advised they had attended the fifth floor on 10 October 2023 and that the lights were working on the day. They said a joint inspection (date unknown) had resulted in a change to September’s order to renew the uplighters. They had just received approval from the landlord and work was scheduled for the following week.
The landlord’s response in April 2024 said it had since determined the lights were being impacted by the sensors fitted. It had asked for a “competent electrician” to attend to complete a review of the light fittings and all related connections by the end of the month. This was to establish the cause and propose a remedy. In the meantime, it had asked for temporary lights to be fitted for health and safety.
The landlord sourced a different contractor shortly after, in May 2024. Matters of performance were also being escalated with the original contractor. The new contractor identified the faults and proposed solutions. The lighting problems and concerns about the contractor had been ongoing for 13 months at the time of the complaint. It could have taken this more appropriate action much sooner and that it did not was a service failure.
Records indicate the landlord did not provide temporary lighting within the timescale committed to and the resident had to further complain. It said this was because the contractor was booked to attend. However, the lights failed again following their attendance and temporary lighting was installed later.
It is important that remedies are followed through in the timescales specified. It is even more important when it relates to health and safety. If a committed timescale changes for any reason, the landlord needs to communicate this with the resident. Failure to do so has the potential to damage the landlord/tenant relationship and make residents lose trust in the process.
Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. The detriment to residents of landlord failings with the upkeep and maintenance of communal areas, is not considered high. It is a shared inconvenience and the time and effort it has taken from those involved in resolving the issues.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £110 for all the failings it identified with its maintenance and upkeep of the communal areas. She had been chasing this matter for 13 months. This sum could be considered reasonable for the inconvenience time and trouble of this matter alone. Therefore, it could not be considered as sufficient for all the other issues which formed part of the final complaint stage.
The landlord’s final stage response calculated that the duration of the service failure experienced by the resident was 90 days. It was not clear why 90 days was the duration. However, the evidence shows that the majority of the failings identified occurred from October 2023 when she experienced signs of deterioration in contact and communication from the landlord. In our view it should have determined the duration to be 6 months and offered compensation reflective of this.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the matter was poor. Although it responded to faults with the lighting it had failed to monitor the outcomes. It also failed to recognise that it should have identified and addressed both the problems with the contractor and the faulty sensors much earlier. It proposed actions to put the matter right, but it did not show it had taken learning from the complaint to prevent this happening again. Neither did it make the resident a proportionate offer of redress.

Restricted access to terrace

The resident complained that the landlord had closed off the level 5 terrace to residents without warning. It remained closed for 2 and half months resulting in the loss of that amenity.
The landlord’s response explained that an operative removed the patio slabs when trying to source a leak into the flats below (date unknown). The terraces were deemed unsafe whilst it completed further investigations into the leaks, so it stopped access. It apologised for not informing residents sooner and for the inconvenience this caused. It explained it was now in the hands of its roofing and defects team and hoped to have a further update by the end of April 2024.
While closing the terrace was disappointing and inconvenient for residents, the landlord’s priority had to be addressing the leaks into residents’ flats. The detriment to residents experiencing water egress into their homes far outweighed the detriment to them of a temporary closure of the terrace. Where health and safety is concerned it is recognised decisions often have to be made quickly and the expected level of consultation cannot always be met. It has appropriately apologised for this.
The resident’s complaint requested the expected completion date of the work and compensation for the loss of the use of the terrace. She also wanted assurances any associated costs would not fall to residents as the building was within the warranty period.
The landlord’s response said that as the matter was still under investigation it could not commit to providing a completion date. This would be frustrating for residents but it was appropriate to be honest at this early stage. It said where defects were noted, it would follow its policy to ensure it was compliant in its approach. Until it was clear on the cause of the issues it could not reasonably commit to there being no costs for residents. It also said it would consider compensation as part of its investigation and it would update residents at the end of April 2024. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
An update from the landlord advised it brought in its scheme improvement team to relay the patio, for timeliness. They worked with caretakers and volunteers to replace the plants. They also took the opportunity to erect much needed bird proofing to keep the area cleaner. Work was complete by 26 June 2024.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the closure of the fifth-floor roof terrace was appropriate. Its decision was to protect the health and safety of residents while it carried out urgent investigation and repair, which was unavoidable. These were unforeseen circumstances inhibiting advance notice of the closure, which it has apologised for. Its complaint response agreed a timescale for updating residents and to consider compensation for the loss of amenity.

Cleaning of communal areas

The resident complained that the communal areas were not as clean as they should be. The areas of most concern were the garden terraces, bin store, and car park.
The resident said the car park was covered in pigeon droppings and excrement from a large dog fouling regularly in the area.
The landlord’s initial response asked the resident to clarify if it was the standard of jet-washing she was complaining about. This was because it had jet-washed the carpark on 30 October 2023. It offered to do it again if this was the case.
The landlord said it was aware of the problem with the dog fouling, it was currently working with its legal team to address the issue. This was appropriate as nuisance from a pet would be a breach of tenancy conditions.
In her escalation request the resident said she was not happy with the landlord’s response to the dog issue. She suspected the caretaker had removed the fouling, but it had not undertaken a deep clean. The lease requires the landlord to “so far as is practicable to keep the common part of the building adequately clean”.
As the landlord had removed the dog excrement it had fulfilled its cleaning responsibility under the terms of the lease. It also offered to carry out another jet-wash if the resident was not satisfied. It is not, however, practical to regularly jet-wash a carpark that is in full time use.
The landlord was taking legal advice to address the problem with the dog longer term. We understand the resident’s reluctance to accept this response as a satisfactory outcome. However, it was not appropriate for it to share details of its action against another resident, this would be a breach of data protection regulations.
The landlord said its installation of mesh wiring in March 2024 had significantly improved the situation with pigeon droppings. It had confirmed this with the caretaking team. It agreed to obtain further feedback from residents once it had completed the removal of remaining nests and jet-washed the area, which was reasonable.
The landlord’s final response agreed to the resident’s request for further jet-washing of the carpark. It acknowledged when it undertook the task previously, cars remained in the carpark. It appropriately acknowledged this may have been down to its communication. It committed to ensuring it informed residents at least 2 to 3 weeks prior to work commencing so that they could remove their cars.
The resident wanted the terraces jet-washed. There was evidence that the landlord had previously tried to arrange this in October 2023. However, in an email 20 February 2024 it advised her that this was not possible due to potential damage to the “stalks” on top of the slabs. It offered to obtain estimates for a deep clean of the areas. It said if residents agreed to the associated cost it would carry it out. This was a reasonable compromise.
In response to the resident’s complaint about cleaning, the landlord visited the site to inspect on 3 April 2024. It found the building’s common parts to be relatively clean, but did find areas in which it could improve. These included dusting of cobwebs, cleaning fire door windowpanes and frames, wiping down of stair treads and periodic jet-washing of the bin store.
The landlord also included in its list, periodic jet-washing of the terraces. This would have been confusing for the resident as she had been informed this was not possible. This was clearly an error. However, when responding to complaints it is important it ensures facts are accurate. Mistakes in responses pose a risk that residents may lose confidence and trust in the process.
The landlord gave assurances that the recommendations for improvement would be implemented. It arranged for additional monitoring of the communal cleaning by the caretaking supervisor. It also issued her with the caretaker’s weekly schedule of cleaning services. This was appropriate as it let her know what she could expect to be done when. It also assisted in managing expectation so there was an understanding of the cleaning service on offer.
When the resident asked for the outcome of the caretaking survey the landlord’s response was evasive. It said feedback was reviewed by the relevant caretaking sub-team and a set of actions agreed would be implemented to improve services.
This was not a service failure as such, but social housing regulatory standards encourage transparency. It is appropriate to share with residents the outcomes of any surveys or views collated from them on services and performance. It provides an opportunity to share what has been learnt and demonstrates residents have been listened to when any actions are taken forward.
Overall, the landlord was able to demonstrate that it was providing cleaning services to the communal areas in accordance with the lease. It arranged for more intensive cleaning to specific areas in response to residents’ concerns. It acknowledged improvements it could make in the service which it committed to take forward.

Window cleaning contract

The resident emailed the landlord on 26 September 2023 with concerns about the window cleaning service. In response it contacted the window cleaning contractor who advised that the windows had been cleaned on 17 August 2023. They confirmed they used the abseil process and completed all windows. They provided it with time-stamped photographs as evidence, which it emailed to the resident.
The neighbour confirmed by email on 10 October 2023 that a number of residents were adamant their windows had not been cleaned. They attached several pictures of dirty windows residents had sent them.
The landlord did not respond to this email about the window cleaning, which became a driver for the resident’s complaint. Her complaint also said that residents were not given prior notice when window cleaners were attending, which invaded their privacy.
In its response on 13 February 2024 the landlord re-iterated that the windows were cleaned in August 2023 and said it was still clarifying the time stamp on the work photographs. It also said the contractor did not let them know when they were attending. This was not a very helpful or satisfactory response. As the issue was raised 5 months earlier it should have been able to look at the time stamp during that time. Furthermore, the landlord had a contract with the window cleaners, access to their schedule should be part of that contract. If it does not know their schedule it cannot monitor performance.
In her escalation request the resident reiterated that not all windows had been cleaned in August 2023. She wanted the landlord to challenge the contractor on this. She also wanted residents to have advance notice of the window cleaning schedule and for the caretaker to be present for future visits to sign off the work.
The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for its lack of communication with residents over the window cleaning. It said it was now in talks with the contractor to confirm the frequency of the cleans and ensure it communicates with the NHL. The proposed cleaning dates would be shared with residents and the NHL would also confirm future dates by email and or SMS.
The landlord did not, however, confirm how it would monitor the contract. It said once the new window cleaning strategy was in place, if there was any deviation residents could come forward and it would ensure the contractor addressed it. It is perfectly reasonable for residents to raise any performance concerns with the landlord. However, it is not reasonable for its contract monitoring to rely on it. It should have an appropriate system in place.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the window cleaning contract was poor. While it took some action to schedule cleans and improve communication it had not demonstrated that the measures put in place would be adequately monitored and any issues satisfactorily addressed. Also, as previously established, it did not make a proportionate offer of redress.

Repairs and garden maintenance

In the resident’s complaint of 15 January 2024, she raised that the light sensor in the bin area was delayed. It did not activate until residents were part way into the storeroom. She said this was a security issue with trespassers in the block. She said rough sleepers had been residing in there leaving faeces and drug paraphernalia, so it needed cleaning and jet washing.
The resident did not say that this was an outstanding issue, it was more of a service request. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had raised a job to reset the bin store sensor to immediate light when motion was sensed. This was an appropriate action for it to take. The NHL would also investigate whether the area could be jet-washed.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 6 April 2024 said operatives would attend on 8 April 2024. However, its repairs history showed that the repair was not raised until 30 April 2024. Its repairs policy commits to responding to routine repairs within 25 days. It took 107 days for it to order the repair, significantly exceeding its target response time, which was not reasonable.
A key concern in the resident’s complaint was that the landlord did not notify them when contractors were attending for communal repairs and gardening. She said not being informed of attendances made it difficult to appraise contractors’ work.
The landlord explained that it is not usual practice for residents to be notified of attendance for communal repairs. It was understandable that the resident was concerned because it charged her for the communal repair services. However, the contract for maintenance and repair is between the contractor and the landlord. It is therefore for the landlord to monitor the attendance, completion and standard of the repair. While it gave assurances to try to notify residents, it is not obliged to do this and has stated it cannot rely on contractors to do so.
The resident’s complaint said that some gardening had been completed on the fifth-floor terrace but none on the fourth floor. It was not clear if recent rounds of garden maintenance had been missed or if the fourth floor was not included in a garden maintenance contract at all.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said that its caretaking services were organising a team to restock the terraces with plants and shrubs. It estimated completion by the end of the first week of April 2024. While this was an appropriate action, the response did not indicate it had investigated the concerns. It did not explain who was responsible for the gardening, what the schedule should be, or how it would monitor this going forward.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint was more informed. It identified that the caretaking team were responsible for the gardening. It said following its visit it evidenced high winds and a need to increase the depth of the planters, which were impacting the plants. It agreed that it should improve weeding. It said this needed to be included in a schedule along with seasonal planting and replacement of plants.
The landlord’s action plan for the gardens said weeding would take place the week commencing 8 of April 2024. However, this was followed with “subject to availability and weeks schedule”. Remedies should specify what will happen and when. This proviso did not suggest it was confident this would happen, which was not a reasonable response.
The landlord’s action plan said treatment of the wooden planters was expected early May 2024. Once it had explored options to increase the depth of the planters, it would plant resilient breeds which would not require extensive maintenance. It would confirm a start date and ongoing schedule with residents prior to May.
While the landlord had devised an action plan, it was not evident it had completed a full investigation into the problems with the gardening service. It had not referred to any service level agreement or investigated whether there might be issues with resources, skills or training. It spoke of a schedule, but it was not clear whether this existed and had failed, or it was intending to introduce one.
The landlord’s action plan addressed the immediate issue. However, it had not recognised its failure to order repairs within timescales or determined the cause of a deterioration in the gardening. Without identifying the root cause or acknowledging its failings it could not demonstrate it had taken learning from the complaints. In not doing so it is difficult to see how it can successfully prevent the same problems reoccurring going forward.

Associated Complaint

Landlords are required to follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve residents’ complaints quickly, and to use the learning from those complaints to drive service improvements. Its Complaints policy is Code compliant.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on the same day. It committed to a written decision within 10 working days, which would be 28 January 2024. It said should there be any delay in fully responding it would explain why to keep her informed. This aligned with its policy and the Code.
On 26 January 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to inform her that it needed more time to respond due to the complexity of the complaint. It extended the response date to 8 February 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord to express her disappointment on 12 February 2024. She said it had missed its deadline to respond and not provided an update in 22 working days. It issued its response the following day but had failed to adhere to its policy or the Code in its delay.
The landlord recognised its delayed response at stage 1 as a failing. It apologised and offered the resident £40 compensation. This was a proportionate amount for a failing that did not significantly affect the overall outcome.
The landlord’s complaint policy requires it to respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days, which aligns with the Code. It issued its stage 2 response on 6 April 2024. This was a response time of 38 days.
The landlord said “it was forced” to delay the response awaiting pending information. We acknowledge the complaints are lengthy and detailed. While both its policy and the Code allow for extensions, they should be discussed and agreed with the resident in advance of the deadline. It provided no evidence that it did.
The landlord accepted that the delay in responding at stage 2 was a service failing. It apologised and offered the resident £40 compensation, bringing its total offer for the complaint handling failings to £80
While the detriment to the resident of a 4 to 18 working day delay was not high, a consistent failure to adhere to timescales, is something the landlord needs to address. Not doing so could be seen as the landlord placing a lack of importance on the process. This could increase the risk of damage to the landlord tenant relationship and create a lack of trust in the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The landlord could not show that it had fully adhered to its complaint handling policy or the Code in its handling of the resident’s complaint. However, it recognised there were failings, for which it apologised and offered the resident reasonable financial redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Queries on joint resident estate inspections.
2. Reports of repairs to the terrace lighting.
3. Reports of minor communal repairs and garden maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Queries on the window cleaning contract.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Service charge concerns.
2. Reports of repairs to the communal door.
3. Concerns on restricted access to the fifth-floor terrace.
4. Concerns about cleaning to the communal areas.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to us of compliance with orders below. It must:
1. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Create a schedule of joint estate inspection, providing advance notice of dates at a mutually agreeable time for both landlord and residents. At a frequency that is achievable for the landlord. Which is diarised to be covered in the absence of the NHL.
3. If it has not already done so, provide the resident with the up-to-date position on its repairs to the terrace lighting.
4. Provide the resident with the schedule / service level agreement for the annual programme of maintenance of the terrace gardens.
5. Sets out to the resident how it monitors the window cleaning contract.
6. Pays the resident the total sum of £370, which is an addition of £260 to the £110 previously offered. This is broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for the inconvenience time and trouble in trying to arrange estate inspections (October 2023 to April 2024).
  2. £110 for the inconvenience time and trouble in trying to resolve repairs to the terrace lighting.
  3. £50 for the landlord’s failure to set out how gardening will be carried out and monitored longer term.
  4. £50 for the landlord’s failure to set out how it will appropriately monitor the window cleaning contract.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord:
1. Pays the resident the £80 compensation it previously awarded for complaint handling. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on payment of this offer of compensation.
2. Clarifies what it has done with respect to charging for the “no access” contactor attendance to the pump room.