London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202434063)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434063

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the heat supply charges for the property.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property. He purchased the property in 2022. The property is a flat within a block. A third party private company owns the freehold of the block. The landlord holds a headlease with the freeholder and an underlease with the resident.
  2. The block is connected to a district heating scheme which produces the heat supply to provide heating and hot water to the flats within the block. The district heating scheme is operated by a third party energy supply company (energy supplier) which uses an agent to provide billing services on its behalf.
  3. On 5 November 2024 the billing agent emailed the resident and informed him he had a debt of £1,977.43 on his account. The agent asked the resident to clear the balance within 10 days to prevent the disconnection of the heat supply to his property. The resident later responded and confirmed he would not make any payment to the agent. On 20 November 2024 the heat supply to the resident’s property was disconnected.
  4. On 20 November 2024 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. He stated that he did not have a contract with the billing agent and believed the service charges he paid to the landlord included the heating and hot water to his property. He requested the restoration of the heat supply and questioned why the landlord had not disclosed, at the point of sale, that payments for heating and hot water were required separately through a third party. He said the lack of transparency had serious financial implications.
  5. On 6 December 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the complaint. It explained that the matter would be escalated. On 19 December 2024 the landlord provided a second stage 1 decision. It referred to a clause in the resident’s lease which set out his agreement to enter a heat supply agreement. The landlord confirmed it asked the energy supplier about restoring the resident’s heat supply. It noted this was unlikely until the resident settled the outstanding debt.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 as he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response.
  7. On 15 January 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The landlord confirmed it did not notify the billing agent that the resident was occupying the property until November 2024. It stated that as a result, the billing agent had backdated his bill to that date. The landlord upheld the complaint on this basis. The landlord confirmed the service charge the resident had been paying to it was for communal heating, not the heat supply to his property. It offered the resident £100 compensation which comprised of:
    1. £30 for the inconvenience.
    2. £50 for its administrative error.
    3. £20 for its complaint handling.
  8. The resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint and he was concerned that he was being charged twice for heating and hot water to this property. The resident said he had not been informed of the heat supply charge when he purchased the property, and that due to the administrative error by the landlord, the charge had accrued to over £2,000. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted:
    1. The heat supply restored to the property.
    2. For the landlord to acknowledge that it failed to disclose information about the charges during the sales process.
    3. Compensation for the distress and impact he experienced.
    4. For the landlord to introduce measures to ensure that future buyers are fully informed of such financial obligations.
  9. Following the stage 2 response from the landlord the resident paid the bill in protest. The heat supply has been restored to his property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The energy supplier and the billing agent in this case are third parties that are not members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). In accordance with the Scheme we can only investigate complaints about members of our Scheme. Our investigation has focused solely on the landlord’s actions or omissions.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the heat supply charges for the property

  1. The resident’s lease requires the resident to enter into a customer supply agreement from the date of the lease. It also prohibits the resident from arranging hot water or heating supply with any provider other than the head landlord or the designated energy supply company.
  2. The resident informed us that he had not received a heat supply agreement. However, landlord has provided a copy of the supply agreement between the resident and the energy supply company which was signed by the resident. The agreement does not have the full date it was signed.
  3. The resident complained that the landlord did not make him aware of the heat supply charges at the time he purchased the property. We would expect the landlord to provide clear information about the heating arrangements before the start of the tenancy or lease and again if these change. Residents should know their rights and obligations and the cost of the heating service. While the resident has stated that he was unaware of the heat supply charges, the evidence demonstrates that he signed the customer supply agreement. The existence of the heat supply agreement is also noted within the lease agreement.
  4. The resident also complained he had been paying service charges to the landlord for communal heating. He said he was informed by the billing agent that the charge in question was for communal heating. The resident was of the view that he was being expected to pay double for heating charges.
  5. During a call with the resident on 27 November 2024 the landlord confirmed that the communal heating service charge was for the maintenance of the communal heating/plant room. This was also confirmed in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint responsedated 19 December 2024.
  6. A service charge statement for the period ending March 2024 includes a ‘communal heating’ charge, which supports the landlord’s position that the charge relates to communal services rather than the direct supply to the resident’s property.
  7. Internal communications between the landlord and billing agent confirmed that the landlord was responsible for notifying the billing agent when a resident moves in. In this case, the landlord failed to inform the billing agent of the resident’s occupancy until November 2024, representing an unreasonable delay.
  8. On 15 January 2025 the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response following his escalation as he was not content with its previous response. The landlord’s response acknowledged it had failed to notify the billing agent when the resident moved into the property. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £80 compensation for its failure to notify the billing agent within a reasonable time.
  9. We recognise that the resident found the receipt of the bill after 2 years of purchasing the property was distressing, and that it was issued later than it should have been. Nevertheless, there is evidence, specifically in the lease and the customer supply agreement, which indicates the resident was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of his responsibility to pay for the heat supply to his property. Therefore, the late notification did not remove or override that contractual obligation. The landlord’s failing in this case was solely around its failure to provide the relevant information to the third party, at the relevant time. This will have caused a delay in producing a bill.
  10. 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, the Ombudsman takes 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.
  11. The landlord acknowledged its delay in notifying the billing agent contributed to the resident’s late receipt of the bill and offered compensation to reflect the resulting distress and inconvenience. The level of compensation aligns with our remedies guidance for cases involving inconvenience and distress, where the service failure did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the heat supply charges for the property.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord provided its responses at both stages of its complaints process within the required timeframes as set out in its policy. However we have found there was miscommunication from the landlord regarding stages of the complaint.
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that at the completion of a stage 1 complaint, landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint and details of any remedy to put things right.
  3. On 6 December 2024, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. However, the response did not comply with the Code. While it summarised the resident’s complaint and desired outcomes, it failed to provide any outcome to the complaint or any remedy. The landlord then sent the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement on 9 December 2024 and later issued another stage 1 response on 19 December 2024.
  4. According to the landlord’s complaints policy, a complaint cannot be escalated until a full stage 1 response has been issued. This is in line with the Code. In this case, the landlord provided a stage 1 decision on 5 December 2024, however, it did not meet the requirements of the Code. The landlord’s communication to the resident thereafter suggested the complaint had been escalated to stage 2. However, this was inaccurate as it later issued another stage 1 response on 19 December 2024.
  5. The landlord recognised itscomplaint handling failures at stage 2. This was appropriate. Its unclear communication about what stage the complaint was at during the process likely caused confusion for the resident. However, as the landlord met the overall timeframes set out in its complaints policy at both stages, the impact of the failure and the detriment caused by it was limited. The £20 compensation offered by the landlord for its failings is proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance for minor service failures.
  6. Overall, we have found that the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to the complaint about its response to the resident’s concerns about the heat supply charges for the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the associated formal complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If the landlord has not already made the payment of the £100 to the resident, we recommend it do so.