London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202430881)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430881

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of fire safety issues within the resident’s block, including:
1. Delays in it replacing the resident’s front door.
2. The resident’s request for information about a Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) conducted in 2018.
3. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s FRA in 2023.
4. The landlord’s communication with the resident about fire safety issues in 2024.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. He has lived at the property, which is a 1 bedroom flat since 2011. The landlord has recorded the resident is vulnerable due to health conditions and he requires wheelchair support. The resident at times during the complaint was represented by his sister. For the purposes of this report, the resident and his sister will be referred to collectively as “the resident.”
The resident reported on 20 October 2023 that he had damaged his front door. The landlord attended on 17 November 2023. Following the visit, the operatives who attended referred the matter to the landlord’s fire safety team to conduct an inspection.
The landlord completed a Fire Safety Assessment (FRA) in the resident’s building on 12 January 2024. This recommended replacing the resident’s front door with a fire door. The resident contacted the landlord regularly during the period January 2024 to September 2024 to chase up the replacement and to raise other issues related to fire safety.
On 11 September 2024, the resident complained about FRAs dating back to 2018. He also reiterated his enquires about delays to replace his front door, as well as the landlord’s handling of fire safety issues.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2024. It apologised for delays in replacing the door and offered compensation of £440. It said it was measuring his door that day to arrange a replacement.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint in September 2024. He again raised issues regarding previous FRAs, the landlord’s handling and communication regarding fire safety issues, as well as delays to replace his front door.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 17 October 2024. It apologised for the delay in replacing the door. It said it would carry out the work by 15 November 2024. It provided responses to the resident’s concerns about its 2018 FRA, its handling and its communication.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said it had resolved the issue with the door on 28 October 2024, but he was unhappy with its response to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his complaint, the resident alleged the landlord “forged the creation” of its 2018 FRA. He alleged that it never completed an FRA in 2018 and that the landlord instead used a FRA for a neighbouring building. Allegations of crime fall outside of our remit to investigate. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, rather than an examination of how the FRA was produced.
The local fire authority is responsible for enforcement of fire safety regulations. Local Authorities also have a role to play through enforcing fire safety through the Housing Act 2004. If the resident wishes to complain that the landlord has not followed fire safety regulations, he is advised to direct his concerns to either of these agencies for further advice. Matters relating to whether the landlord complied with fire safety regulations are therefore out of scope for this investigation and the Service.

The landlord’s response to its handling of fire safety assessments and associated repairs

Delays in it replacing the resident’s front door

The resident reported on 20 October 2023 he had damaged his front door after he forced entry after being locked out. The landlord attended on 17 November 2023 to repair the door. However, it stated its fire safety team needed to inspect the door.
The landlord attended the resident’s building on 12 January 2024 to conduct a FRA. This identified 7 significant findings that required action. One of which was to replace the resident’s front door with a fire door, as the integrity of the existing door was compromised.
The landlord’s fire safety policy states when its operatives identify any serious fire safety deficiencies, it should raise this with the team responsible. In regard to identifying a potential risk, the landlord acted in line with its policy when its operatives referred the repair to the resident’s front door to its fire safety team.
The resident chased the landlord on several occasions between January and July 2024 about the replacement of the front door. On 1 August 2024, the landlord emailed the resident. It acknowledged the work it originally completed on the door was not acceptable, as it did not meet the required fire door standard. It explained it had appointed a new contractor to complete the works.
It is not clear from the evidence when the works took place that the landlord described as not being acceptable.
The resident complained to the landlord on 11 September 2024 about the length of time it was taking for the landlord to replace the door.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2024. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in it replacing his front door. It said it would attend his property that day to take measurements for the new door. It acknowledged the work it completed to the door previously was unacceptable and had left the resident without a fire door for an extended period.
As part of its complaint response the landlord offered the resident compensation of £440. It said £240 of which was for its failure to recognise the impact of the delays due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. £200 was for the time and effort spent by the resident in trying to get the complaint resolved.
On 20 September 2024, the resident requested his complaint be escalated.
On 30 September 2024, the resident added to his complaint that the issue with the door had been ongoing for over a year. He said the current condition of the door was unacceptable and a fire safety risk. He said the issue was affecting his mental and physical health.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 17 October 2024. It apologised for the delay in installing a fire door. It said it would ensure that work was completed by 15 November 2024. The landlord clarified as part of its earlier compensation offer it had factored in the delays that had occurred when arriving at its total offer of £440.
The landlord installed a fire door on 28 October 2024. Whilst this was ahead of the schedule set out in its stage 2 response, however, it was over 12-months from when the resident first reported an issue. In addition, it was over 9 months from when the landlord identified a need to replace the door as part of its FRA. The length of time taken for the landlord to install a fire door was excessive and unreasonable. The resident had to chase the replacement of the door throughout most of 2024, which caused him additional distress and inconvenience.
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.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in it replacing the resident’s front door. It offered the resident compensation of £440 for its failures. This amount reasonably reflected the time the repairs took and demonstrated the landlord’s appreciation of their effect on the resident. It was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident.
Overall, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to acknowledge, apologise and put things right. The landlord’s recognition of the impact its failings had on the resident, along with its apology and financial redress, reasonably put things right and resolved the complaint.

The resident’s concerns with the 2018 FRA

The resident raised concerns to the landlord on 11 March 2024 regarding its 2018 FRA. He said the FRA that it issued in 2018 was illegal and senior managers had tried to cover this up.” The resident re-raised his concerns about its 2018 FRA as part of further contact with the landlord in April and June 2024.
In internal landlord emails sent on 30 July 2024 the landlord recorded it was reviewing the concerns the resident had raised regarding the validity of previous FRAs.
On 11 September 2024, the landlord emailed the resident. It said it had not identified any FRAs that were inappropriate. It asked him to provide a copy of the FRA he alleged was not legal.
In his complaint on the same day, the resident complained about the 2018 FRA. He said that an operative attended in 2019 regarding windows in his block and asked how the block had been given a fire safety certificate. The resident said the landlord emailed his neighbour a copy of its FRA, but this did not relate to his block. The landlord’s call notes do not state where the operative was from.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2024. However, its response did not address the concerns the resident had raised with its 2018 FRA.
As part of his escalated complaint, the resident reiterated his allegation on 24 September 2024 that he considered the landlord had forged the 2018 FRA. He asked the landlord to provide evidence it had not forged the risk assessment or to take accountability.
On 30 September 2024, the resident provided an email to the landlord from his local councillor dated the same day. The email from the councillor said during 2021 they had seen a FRA from 2018 for the resident’s block. The councillor considered it was clear the assessment referred to the block across the road, as information and pictures within it related to that block. The landlord asked the resident to provide it with the copy of the assessment referred to in the email, but the resident did not have a copy to provide to it.
In its final complaint response on 17 October 2024, the landlord explained it had investigated the resident’s concerns that it had forged the FRA from 2018. The landlord explained it completed an FRA on 11 July 2018. It uploaded this to its system on 18 July 2018. It considered the FRA was suitable and provided a copy of the document to the resident.
The evidence shows the landlord considered the resident’s concerns regarding the 2018 FRA. It conducted an investigation and explained the process it undertook to conduct the assessment at the material time. It provided the resident with the document it stated it produced at the time.
The resident was asked to provide evidence throughout his complaint which supported his claim that there was an issue with the FRA from 2018. He did not do so. There is no burden of proof upon the landlord which required it to prove ‘it did not forge’ the document as per the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the evidence shows the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the 2018 FRA was reasonable.
This finding leads to a determination there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its 2018 FRA.

The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s FRA in 2023

In his complaint on 11 September 2024, the resident complained about the assessor who attended his building to complete a FRA in 2023. He said as the assessor was leaving, he asked them about several issues, such as gaps under the doors and the lack of fire doors or door closures. He said after challenging the assessor, the assessor left the building, without completing a FRA.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident had raised “valid” concerns regarding its risk assessor’s inspection. It said if he considered the FRA conducted was substandard, ‘it was sorry it trusted that contractor to attend.’
The landlord’s response was unclear. It did not explain what concerns the resident had raised or provide details about which inspection it was referring to. The landlord’s response did not demonstrate that it had investigated the resident’s concerns about events in 2023.
On 24 September 2024, as part of his escalated complaint, the resident reiterated his concerns about the assessor who attended in 2023. He said he did not identify fire safety issues or complete a FRA.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 17 October 2024, the landlord stated in its summary of its stage 1 response that it confirmed in its response it had replaced the previous contractor who conducted the 2023 assessment to ensure future FRA’s were carried out to a sufficient standard.
We have seen no evidence that shows the landlord provided this information in its stage 1 response. The evidence shows that as part of its stage 2 response, the landlord again did not address the full concerns the resident raised regarding its assessment in 2023.
The landlord’s fire safety policy classes the resident’s building as low risk, as it is up to 2 stories. It states it will complete an FRA every 5 years for low risk properties. The evidence shows the previous FRA was completed on 11 July 2018. Therefore, in line with its policy, it would be due to undertake another FRA on or around July 2023.
The landlord failed to explain to the resident why it did not complete an FRA in 2023, in circumstances where it appeared there was a requirement to do so under its policy.
The landlord’s complaint response suggested it had identified a failing with the assessor it instructed to complete a FRA. This was because it stated it replaced the contractor to ensure future FRAs were carried out to a sufficient standard. However, it provided no further explanation of what issues it had identified and did not apologise for any failings. This was unreasonable and a failure in the landlord’s response, as it did not address the complaint point the resident raised. This damaged the landlord’s relationship with the resident, who has lost trust in its approach to fire safety issues, causing him distress.
These failures to fully answer the resident’s complaints leads to a determination of maladministration. An order for £150 compensation has been made to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance in circumstances where the failures adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge or put things right.

The landlord’s communication with the resident about fire safety issues in 2024

On 31 January 2024, the resident asked for information on the FRA the landlord completed early that month. He asked it to provide him with a copy.
The landlord’s fire safety manager emailed the resident on 8 February 2024 to introduce himself. He said he had instructed a new contractor to complete a FRA and would contact the resident to confirm the date of a new appointment. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of its FRA on 20 February 2024.
The resident had further conversations with the landlord regarding fire safety issues during the period March 2024 to July 2024. The full extent of the discussions between the parties was not provided to us.
On 30 July 2024, the landlord recorded that it had updated the risk rating on the FRA for the resident’s block to medium. This was because the resident’s flat did not have a functioning fire door.
On 1 August 2024, the landlord provided the resident with a copy of its latest FRA following its meeting with him on 23 July 2024. It said the updated FRA included his disabilities and a fire evacuation plan. It said it would look to access the loft in the property when it next visited the block and update this aspect of the current FRA. A copy of the FRA from 1 August 2024 was not provided to us by the landlord.
On 27 August 2024, the resident asked the landlord to call him to discuss his concerns about fire and structural issues related to the communal area, and two electric cupboards.
The landlord responded on 28 August 2024 by email. It said it had instructed a structure survey, which would investigate boxing located above the windows. It said that the electrical services were located within their own compartments. It explained it understood he had raised several concerns regarding fire safety. It said it had discussed issues at length on the phone with him and that he may not have received the answers to his questions. It asked him to document his concerns so it could provide a written response to his queries.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 September 2024. He said the structural survey had been completed, but the landlord’s assessor said they would need to return to access the loft and inspect the boxing around the windows. It asked the landlord to confirm when it would return to complete its FRA. He asked it to call him.
The landlord responded on 11 September 2024 by email. It said it had raised work requests for its staff to inspect the boxing above the window and boarding above the first floor door. It said it did not consider it necessary to revisit the property for a further risk assessment. However, it would continue to monitor the outcomes of actions it had initiated as part of its FRA. It said it had completed a comprehensive FRA at his property, which identified any significant risks and it had initiated actions for investigation and resolution.
The landlord said it had discussed issues several times over the phone with the resident, which it thought had led to confusion and misunderstanding. It asked the resident to direct any further queries to an area manager until it appointed a new housing officer. It said it would keep the area manager updated with matters relating to fire safety.
Alongside the other issues referred to in this assessment, the resident complained in September 2024. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s communication regarding fire safety issues in his block. He was unhappy with the responses he had received from the fire safety manager.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2024, the landlord failed to answer any of the complaint points the resident raised about its ongoing communication.
On 20 September 2024, the resident asked the landlord’s fire safety manager to call him regarding boxing around the main window. The fire safety manager responded by email asking him to contact the area manager as previously requested. The fire safety manager said he was in the process of scheduling work regarding the boxing around the window.
The evidence shows this was the third time the resident had asked the landlord to call him, but it instead responded by email. The evidence shows that the landlord had previously set out that there had been mixed messages and confusion when providing information verbally to the resident. The evidence shows the landlord had appointed a single point of contact for the resident, which would allow consistency in its message. It had a plan and process in place upon which it was able to service the resident’s requests and provide him with the information he was asking about in a reasonable timescale.
There is no evidence the resident had asked for phone contact only as part of a reasonable adjustment. Therefore, in the circumstances, the evidence shows it was reasonable for the landlord not to return calls and to service the requests by email.
In his escalated complaint, the resident told the landlord by phone on 24 September 2024 that he did not consider the landlord had ever completed a legitimate FRA. He said that works he considered it should complete to be in order to be compliant with fire safety had not been identified or recommended as part of its FRA. He complained he was no longer able to correspond with the fire safety manager directly and asked why.
On 30 September 2024, the resident provided further information regarding his complaint. He referred to structural issues and skirting boards being used to patch gaps, such as between ceilings and walls. He also raised that he considered the lino flooring was highly flammable.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 17 October 2024. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns that he could no longer correspond directly with its FRA team manager. It explained its FRA team did not have direct contact with any resident. It explained the resident could raise any fire safety concerns with its area manager until it had appointed a new housing officer. It said the area manager would raise any fire safety concerns to its fire safety team for it to provide a response.
The landlord also said its FRA team manager who completed the 2024 FRA was content with the current safety measures based on the building’s height. It said it did not consider that any additional measures were necessary. The landlord explained it had classified the building as medium risk due to the ongoing issue with the resident’s front door. However, once it had replaced the front door, it would reassess the building to low risk. It would then complete a FRA every 5 years, in line with its policy.
The response shows the landlord clarified how information was passed to its FRA teams. It stated how and to who the resident could report. It clearly stated its current assessment of fire risk at the property and how this would change when remedial works took place. In addition, it outlined how fire risk assessments would subsequently take place in line with its policy. The response answered all of the points raised by the resident in his complaint.
While there was no failing in the landlord’s response to this element of the resident’s complaint, the landlord missed an opportunity to improve the landlord tenant relationship. It is evident the resident had unresolved fire safety concerns. The landlord could have improved its relationship by being specific in its response about each concern the resident raised. It could have provided a better individual service by explaining it had considered each separate point raised in its assessment and where it either featured in its risk assessment or why it did not feature.
It would have provided reassurance to the resident if the landlord had opted to explain in its response how the resident could raise his concerns with the relevant fire safety authority if he did not agree with its risk assessment or continued to have concerns following its complaint response.
In summary, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident about fire safety issues in 2024.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about delays in it replacing his front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about FRA conducted in 2018.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its FRA in 2023.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident about fire safety issues in 2024.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £150 for failures in its handling of the resident’s concerns about its FRA in 2023.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must send the resident an apology in writing for the failures identified within this report.
Evidence of this must be provided to the Ombudsman and the resident by the relevant deadline.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so the landlord should now pay the resident the £440 compensation it offered in its complaint responses.