Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202422571)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422571

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

12 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about the communal lighting.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder for a 2-bedroom flat within a larger block. The landlord is the freeholder for the building.
  2. On 7 August 2024 the resident complained to the landlord the communal lighting within the building was always kept on which was unnecessary due to the amount of natural light. He said this caused unnecessary electricity consumption and service charge costs. He asked it to adjust the communal lighting to be activated by sensors when people were present in the communal areas.
  3. The landlord issued the resident a stage 1 “acknowledgement and decision letter” on 8 August 2024 and said it intended to respond by 22 August 2024.
  4. On 26 August 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that he had not received a response to his complaint. He reiterated that its decision to keep the communal lighting on at all times caused him unnecessary expense through service charges.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 September 2024. It told the resident the current communal lighting system could not be fully turned off but dimmed when no people were detected to keep energy costs minimal. It said it would upgrade communal light fittings if they fail but in line with its reactive repair policy it would not replace these unless repairs were not possible. It also stated replacing the communal lighting system would incur a chargeable cost which would increase his, and other residents’, service charge. It accepted that it appeared not to have sent him a stage 1 decision letter, it apologised and offered him £50 in recognition of this.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to keep communal lighting in the building on at all times and escalated his complaint to this Service on 3 September 2024. He told us he wanted the landlord to make changes to the communal lighting system and refund him for unnecessary electricity costs.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. Paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, seek to raise again matters which we have already decided upon.
  2. The resident previously brought a complaint to this Service (our reference 202000464) about the landlord, relating to its handling of repairs in the communal areas of the building including the lighting. This Service determined the previous complaint on 27 January 2021.
  3. Our previous determination set out in paragraph 10 the resident’s complaint about the communal lighting included that the landlord had installed LED lighting which “remained on constantly” and that this “caused an expense that residents should not have to pay for”. We found, as set out in paragraph 25, the evidence showed the landlord had argued the new communal lighting system cost less to run despite being in use more. We determined that there was no maladministration in its handling of the repairs to the communal area.
  4. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that, except for one unit it replaced like-for-like, it has not changed the light fittings in the communal areas of the building since the events covered in our previous determination in January 2021. Therefore, it is our opinion that we have already decided upon the resident’s complaint about the communal lighting as part of our determination in January 2021 and will not investigate this again.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. As set out previously the resident complained to the landlord on 7 August 2024. It wrote to him the following working day stating that it attempted to phone him to discuss the complaint but was unable to get hold of him. It gave him contact details if he wanted to discuss the complaint and said it would aim to respond by 22 August 2024.
  2. From the available records there is no evidence of correspondence between the landlord and the resident until he requested to escalate his complaint on 26 August 2024, 12 working days after its acknowledgement. This was not in accordance with the Code which said the stage 1 response should be issued within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. If it needed an extension to respond it should have informed him of the reason for this.
  3. In the resident’s email of 26 August 2024 he complained to the landlord that he had not received its stage 1 response within 10 working days and specified that he wanted it to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. It agreed to do this without issuing a stage 1 response. This was not consistent with its complaints policy, which said it would not escalate a complaint until it provided a stage 1 response. Nevertheless, as it did this at his request we do not see this deviation from its standard procedure had a negative effect on him.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 September 2024, 3 working days after its stage 2 acknowledgement. This was in accordance with the Code which said that a stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days of the complaint escalation being acknowledged.
  5. As set out previously the landlord acknowledged it had not sent a stage 1 response to the resident, apologised for this and offered him £50 as compensation. In line with our guidance on remedies this was reasonable to put things right. There was a short delay in it issuing a stage 1 response, prior to his email of 26 August 2024, which would have likely caused him a degree of frustration. However, it agreed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as he requested so we do not see this delay had a lasting impact.
  6. As such the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was a reasonable remedy to put right the impact of its complaint handling and we have not made any orders on this complaint.            

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme the resident’s complaint about the communal lighting is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £50 it previously offered for its handling of his complaint if it has not already done so.