London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202421521)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats and has use of a purpose-built shed. Earlier in the year, the resident reported that the shed door had been hanging off and plywood had been stolen. He complained then the landlord fitted a new lock, it gave the key to a neighbour. At the time of the complaint the neighbour had given the resident the key, however he did not want to go into the shed without the landlord being present. The resident asked us to investigate as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response. The resident advised us he has memory dyslexia.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord giving the shed key to another resident.
   2. How the landlord responded to reports that items may have been stolen.
   3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord giving the shed key to another resident.
4. There was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to reports that items may have been stolen.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not fully address the inconvenience and trouble that the resident experienced as a result of it giving the key to his neighbour, nor the impact of the delay in retrieving it.
7. In response to the resident’s reports that items may have been stolen, the landlord advised him to report this to the police and offered advice regarding insurance. That was an appropriate and reasonable response to the resident’s complaint.
8. In its complaint handling, the landlord recognised it delayed its responses to the resident. However, it did not recognise the impact of its additional stage 1 response. This made the process longer than it needed to be. This amounted to service failure in its complaint handling.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

9. It is not disputed the landlord gave the shed key to another resident. The landlord believed the neighbour who lived in the same number flat as the shed, used it.
10. We understand there are fewer sheds than flats. The landlord allocated sheds on a first come first served basis. The landlord said it did not contact him as it was not aware the resident used the shed at the time of the repair. Had the landlord had records of who uses which shed, it might have negated this complaint. We recognise it can be difficult to accurately maintain these records. The landlord, in its final response, said it had added clearer notes to stop this happening again. This was an appropriate response.
11. The resident attempted to tell the landlord he used the shed. However, the landlord’s repair notes (incorrectly) say it was the neighbour’s shed. With the benefit of hindsight, we recognise it would have been best practice for the landlord to keep the key until it had completed further investigation.
12. After the resident’s call on 5 February 2024[SD1], the landlord made enquiries both on that day and the following day, to see what happened and why it gave the key to the neighbour. This was an appropriate response from the landlord. However, the landlord did not progress this until the resident’s email on 16 February 2024, when he said the neighbour refused to give him the key.
13. This means the landlord did not, as it said in its 2nd stage 1 response, immediately arrange for the neighbour to give the key to the resident when it was aware of the mistake. The resident was without the means to access his shed for a period of 3 weeks, with the landlord being aware of this for around half of the time. The landlord should have progressed this more quickly than it did. The neighbour returned the key when the landlord asked.
14. The landlord recognised it put the resident in an uncomfortable position. However, it did not recognise its delay left the resident without access to his shed for longer and meant he directly contacted the neighbour causing unnecessary tension between them. Therefore, the landlord made some attempt to put things right, but it failed to fully address the detriment to the resident. As such we find there was maladministration in the landlord giving the shed key to another resident.
15. The landlord awarded £140 for the resident’s time, effort, distress, and inconvenience. It advised it added clearer notes to prevent a recurrence. Due to the further failings we have identified, we have increased the compensation by a further £200, bringing the total to £340.
16. We note the resident would like the landlord to move him. We have discussed this with the resident and confirmed this is not a remedy we can make. In addition, the resident has asked the landlord to assess the works he has carried out in his flat. As this is not directly related to this case, we are not able to order that as a remedy.

17. There was lack of clarity around whether the items were missing. The resident’s initial complaint of 16 February 2024 said the plywood had gone when he reported the damaged door in January 2024. On 28 September 2024, the resident said the plywood had been there when the operative was on site, in January, but not later, or it seemed not to be there when the neighbour demonstrated they had the key to open the shed on 16 February 2024.
18. We cannot say what was in the shed prior to / after the door damage or before / after the neighbour gave the key to the resident. The landlord did what we would expect it to do, which was to advise the resident to approach the police.
19. The resident requested that the landlord be present when he opened the shed in the 2nd email he sent on 16 February 2024.
20. The resident reraised his request for the landlord to witness this at least 4 times. The landlord should have addressed this earlier in its complaint process, however it did respond in its final response letter.
21. We understand the resident’s desire for witnesses, however this will not prove when or if items were taken or who took them. Therefore, we understand why the landlord declined this request. In a telephone call on 15 October 2025 the resident advised us he still has not opened the shed. To start the resident using the shed again, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to attend. We emphasise if there are missing items, the landlord is unlikely to be able to take any action against the neighbour.
22. The resident was clear it held the landlord responsible for the items which may have been stolen and for the workman’s cost for 3 days. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to claim on his own insurance. It did this in its 2nd stage 1 response. In its final response letter, the landlord provided the resident with its insurance details to make a claim if he held it responsible for the loss. The landlord could have done this earlier in its complaint responses.
23. We assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. In a case like this we would expect the landlord, through its complaint process, to advise the resident to go to the police and provide him with guidance about insurance. While we do not believe it was necessary for the landlord to be present when the resident opened the shed, it would be useful to progress things. While we recognise the landlord could have addressed these matters earlier in its complaint process, it did do this by the final response. As such the landlord acted appropriately and there was no maladministration in the landlord response to reports that items may have been stolen.

24. The landlord logged the complaint outside of its policy timeframes. The resident raised his complaint on 16 February 2024. The landlord logged it 10 working days later, on 1 March 2024. Its complaints policy said it would do this in 5 working days.
25. To be in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and our Code, it should have sent its stage 1 response by 18 March 2024. The landlord sent this on 3 June 2024, this was 52 working days late. The landlord awarded the resident £40 for its delayed response. In our view, this is not a proportionate amount to compensation for the length of the delay. We have awarded an additional £50 to make the compensation for this failing to £90. 
26. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 27 July 2024. The landlord sent a 2nd stage 1 response on 27 September 2024. This awarded the resident £60 for complaint handling and the landlord apologised for the delay.
27. The landlord did not act in line with the Code or its policy by sending the 2nd stage 1 response. We have not seen the landlord’s reasoning for creating this additional stage in its complaints process. By doing this, it delayed the resident in being able to exhaust the complaints process sooner.
28. The landlord issued its final response within the 20 working days it allows itself in its complaints policy.
29. The resident told us the landlord had not addressed any of his major concerns. While we see it did not address each element he raised in each complaint response, by the final response letter we believe it did respond fully to his complaint points. We recognise his comments may relate to other complaints he had with the landlord.
30. By the 2nd stage 1 response, the landlord had awarded a total of £100 for its poor complaint handling. We have awarded an additional £50 for the stage 1 delay and £50 for the delay in the final response by having an additional stage 1. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100, bringing the total compensation to £200 for the complaint handling service failure.

[SD1]Was this call just about the resident explaining he used the shed? Up until this point, it reads that way.

If the important aspect of this call was that the landlord had given the key to the wrong person, please say that.