London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202214674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214674

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

9 May 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. Reports that he was unable to use his parking space.
2. Queries about his service charge.
3. Reports about delays in completing lift repairs.
4. Reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by a neighbour.
5. Reports about communal repairs, cleaning, and the caretaking service.
6. Associated complaints.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a one-bedroom fifth floor flat in a communal building. The landlord, a housing association, owns the building.
The resident raised 2 complaints to the landlord as follows:
1. On 7 September 2022 he complained about his allocated parking space. He said he paid monthly for parking but constantly found others parking in his bay. He said the parking enforcement company took no action and he had altercations when he challenged those parked in his space. He added that the landlord had failed to resolve the issues or safeguard him.
2. On 28 November 2022 he complained about his service charge and the lift being out of service for 2 weeks. He said he had other concerns which he could not fit onto its complaint form and asked for a call or email. Due to receiving no response, he wrote further in March and September 2023 detailing his concerns. These included the service charge, lift repairs, ASB, communal repairs, standard of cleaning, the caretaking service, and CCTV.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 12 October 2022. It said it was sorry to learn that he had experienced parking issues. It understood that he had contacted the parking enforcement company directly but had been unable to find a resolution. It was aware of the issues and assured him that it was reviewing the car park management. It advised him to download the parking enforcement company’s app and send photographs of unauthorised vehicles to them. It believed that his payments were made directly to the parking company so he would need to settle the matter directly with them.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his parking complaint on 1 November 2022. He confirmed that he paid the landlord directly for parking and quoted his tenancy reference number.
In its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 22 November 2022, the landlord said that it had ordered a drop post to be installed in his parking space. Its contractor would be in touch to install this. It was sorry that he had been threatened on occasions and for the distress and inconvenience. It offered £320 compensation comprising £120 for distress and inconvenience, £100 for time and effort, and £100 for the delay in dealing with his complaint.
The landlord did not provide a stage 1 complaint response in relation to the second complaint. It responded at stage 2 on19 October 2023 providing a response to each element of the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the outage of the lift and its complaint handling and offered £530 compensation. This comprised £40 for distress, £50 for inconvenience, and £40 for the lift outage, totalling £130. It offered £400 forits complaint handling.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He told us that he does not feel that the landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation of why it increases the service charges annually when it has reduced the services.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We cannot investigate complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. The resident may wish to seek advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) if he wishes to pursue this further. We can, however, investigate complaints about how a landlord handles enquiries relating to service charges.
The resident told us that he made a complaint about subletting in the building. However, we were unable to see that subletting was mentioned in either of the complaints outlined above. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns through its 2-stage complaint process. The resident will need to contact the landlord about this matter and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if he is dissatisfied with the way the landlord responds.

Reports about parking

In the resident’s complaint he explained that he was paying £63 each month for his allocated parking space. He often found that he could not use it due to others parking there which led to altercations. He felt that the landlord was not safeguarding him after being made aware that the parking issue had “got out of hand”. People were using his bay to park for free and with no permit. He said he would no longer make full payment for his parking bay.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged the parking issues and it appropriately said it was sorry that the resident was experiencing issues. While it stated that it was considering solutions it was unable to provide any timescale for when it would provide a resolution. This was not helpful and would likely have added to the resident’s frustration. In its response it also advised the resident to again contact its parking enforcement company. This was not reasonable given he had explained in his complaint that they took no action. It also advised him to dispute his payment with the parking company but should have known from its own records that he paid the fee directly to it.
The landlord’s records of 16 November 2022 referred to the parking issues and the resident having to pay to park on the street. It referred to delivery and work vans using his bay as well as disabled badge holders. It said that this was unacceptable and that he had made contact on numerous occasions about the matter. Its parking enforcement company covered a large area and could not be there to enforce no parking in resident spaces. He had sent around 200 photographs of vehicles parked in his space and had been threatened when he asked for the vehicles to be moved, both physically and threatening damage to his car. It asked for the situation to be addressed and suggested this may include the installation of CCTV, improved signage, or the installation of a collapsible bollard.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it confirmed that its contractor would be in touch to install a drop post. It would have keys that only the resident could use. It was sorry that he had been threatened and said that this would need to be dealt with by the police. It was sorry that its parking company failed to take action to rectify the situation and avoid further confrontations. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress and said it was reviewing the renewal of the enforcement contract. It offered £220 compensation comprising £120 for distress and inconvenience, and £100 for time and effort.
We appreciate that the situation would likely have been frustrating and distressing for the resident. However, the landlord demonstrated that it listened to his concerns. Its advice about contacting the police about any altercations was reasonable. He confirmed that it did install the barrier which resolved the issue. Its apology and compensation offer was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance which says that sums of between £100 and £600 are appropriate when there is a failure which adversely affects the resident but which had no permanent impact. We find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in the circumstances.

Queries about service charges

In the resident’s complaint of 28 November 2022, he said he had reduced his monthly service charge contribution but did not explain further. On 9 December 2022 he said he paid a service charge for things that were non-existent. He asked for a reduced charge or a refund.
The landlord’s records of 16 December 2022 referred to speaking with the resident. It noted that he was unhappy with paying his service charge for a number of reasons. This included the caretaking service due to the caretaker being unable to fulfil his role due to health concerns. He did not feel he was getting a value for money service. He also mentioned not having a property manager for a period of time, poor quality CCTV, a water outage, and the standard of cleaning.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 December 2022 asking him to provide more detail about which services he was unhappy with. This was not appropriate given its telephone conversation with him 3 days earlier. He said he would not provide further information as he had already done so. He disagreed that there had been any overspend and said he would not be making payments. He also commented that repairs were not completed promptly and said that it had reduced the cleaning service from 4 days to 2 days per week.
The resident wrote further in March and September 2023 repeating his concerns about the service charge, lack of communication, and failing to provide an adequate service for the costs. He raised concerns about the management fee and again questioned the increased costs.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it said it had contacted the service charge team who confirmed that he had not provided an indication as to which service he had an issue with. It asked him to provide details for which service he believed the charges did not reflect the level of service provided and it would look into the matter. It said that the costs were based on the invoices received and the more maintenance and repair costs within the year resulted in overspends on services. This was never the desired outcome but when reconciling all charges these appeared to be valid and rechargeable and had been included in the final accounts. It asked again that he provide more detail about what he was unhappy with and recommended that he continue to pay his service charge. If it found any discrepancies it would process an adjustment. As he had not provided the information requested it did not uphold his complaint.
The landlord’s response was not reasonable as the resident had previously explained the services, he was dissatisfied with during a telephone call in December 2022 and in his further correspondence. Asking him to provide the information again was not helpful.It failed to provide any explanation about the caretaking service, reduced cleaning frequency, the management fee, or its service charge increases.
For the above reasons we have made a finding of service failure and awarded £100 compensation for time and trouble. This is in line with our remedies guidance which says that sums between £50 and £100 are appropriate when there is a failure by the landlord and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put it right. We have made an order for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss his service charge concerns.

Reports about repairs to the lift

The resident raised a complaint on 28 November 2022 about the lift, stating it had not worked for 2 weeks. He explained that he lived on the fifth floor and was struggling to carry shopping upstairs. He had a newborn baby and his wife was restricted as she was unable to use the stairs carrying the baby. He appreciated that the lift may break down but said this had become “the norm”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 December 2022 asking if the lift had been repaired and left in good working order. This was not appropriate as it should have been aware from its own records what actions it had taken to resolve the matter.
The landlord’s records of 16 December 2022 refer to a conversation with the resident. It said there were multiple issues ongoing and while it would deal with the lift complaint, other matters required a separate response.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 9 January 2023 and wrote again on 26 September 2023 stating that the lift issues had caused inconvenience for weeks and months. There had been constant breakdowns with one instance of the lift being out of service for 2 weeks. Its contractor had told residents that they had advised the landlord to replace the lift due to its age and difficulty obtaining parts. He added that it failed to communicate about the outages.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it said it had reviewed its records back to the beginning of 2022. It detailed 9 instances from January 2022 to October 2023 when the lift had been reported and repaired. Many of these were repaired within its 24 hour repair timescale. However, there had been 2 instances totalling 9 days where the lift was out of service. It apologised for the inconvenience and offered £130 compensation for the distress caused and loss of facility.
The landlord’s response was comprehensive and demonstrated that it had investigated its repairs records, the majority of which were completed within its repair policy timescale of 24 hours. We appreciate that the lift outage would likely have been inconvenient and frustrating for the resident and his family, given they had a new baby and 5 flights of stairs. However, the landlord’s apology and compensation offer was appropriate. It considered the distress caused and period of time the lift had not been working. Its offer was in line with our remedies guidance as outlined above. We find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.
We have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider the frequency of repairs and age of the lift. It should consider its planned maintenance programme and when the lift is likely to require renewal.

Reports about ASB

In the resident’s complaint of 26 September 2023, he said that his neighbour below played loud music at least 4 times each week which caused “stress and anger”. He confronted the person but this made no difference. He was told to download a noise app and make 10 recordings but said he would not waste his time as he should not have to experience noise 10 times. However, he decided to “follow the rules” and download the app but it did not work. He called again and was told to inform the council. It had failed to safeguard him and his family from confrontations. The property manager made efforts to send out letters outlining that ASB would not be tolerated and it had made a difference. He asked why he had to wait over a year for someone to care enough to do what they had now managed to do.
In the landlord stage 2 complaint response it said that the resident had reported issues with noise nuisance previously. This related to a neighbour playing loud music at night and in the early hours of the morning. A warning letter was sent to the alleged perpetrator regarding this. When it contacted him for an update, he said the noise level had drastically reduced and was happy for it to close the case. It received no further reports. It said that the matter had been dealt with and had been resolved on 21 November 2022.
There was no evidence provided to suggest that the resident made any further reports of noise. While we appreciate that noise can be disturbing, the evidence suggests that the matter was resolved in November 2022. We have, therefore, made a finding of no maladministration.

Communal repairs, cleaning, and caretaking

In the resident’s complaints he said that he was paying for things to be fixed, yet nothing got fixed. He said the external lighting in the car park had been broken and no lights worked in the area. Cars had been “smashed into” and damaged as a result. The landlord was aware of the lighting but it took years to get to the root of the issue. It sent contractors to fix things who caused more damage. There were scratches inside the lift and damaged paintwork. He said he should not be liable for constant call outs for the same jobs.
The resident said that the previous caretaker had helped with repairs and DIY inside residents properties. The current caretaker was unable to fulfil his role due to medical conditions. This was paid for via the service charge and he felt that the service charge should be reduced to take this into account. He also raised concerns about the communal cleaning stating that standards had “slipped”. There were stains on carpets, the top floor was not as clean as the first 3 floors, and the lift had patches on the floor.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it explained that the onsite caretaker carried out health and safety checks daily. They reported any communal repairs to the relevant contractor and it also undertook monthly inspections. It said that the external lighting in the car park was operational most of the time and when it was not it was fixed promptly. It gave a list of dates when repairs had been reported and when they were complete. These were all within its repairs policy timescales. It had notice boards located in each block which were updated with the information regarding communal repairs as and when they were reported and complete. As it completed daily checks and raised and completed repairs within timescale it did not uphold the complaint.
The landlord said that there were no issues with the cleaning. It planned to do a deep clean in the block such as the walls, floors and lift which had been arranged. It would continue to monitor the cleaning during its monthly inspections.
It would have been helpful for the landlord to have explained that its caretaker was likely not responsible to complete any work inside residents’ homes. It could also have explained the caretakers role in more detail and provided a response to his concerns that they were unable to fulfil their role. That said, its response was reasonable and demonstrated that it had reviewed its repairs records. It completed repairs within its repairs policy timescale. We have, therefore, been unable to find any failing and have made a finding of no maladministration.

Associated Complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is in line with our complaint handling code.
It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) 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 our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The resident complained about parking on 7 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 9 September and said it would respond by 20 September 2022. It sent its stage 1 complaint response on 12 October 2022, 24 working days later and 14 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. He asked to escalate his complaint on 1 November 2022 and the landlord responded on 22 November 2022, 15 working days later within its complaint policy timescale. It apologised and offered £100 compensation for the delay in its complaint handling.
The resident raised his second complaint on 28 November 2022 about the lift and his service charges. He asked to be contacted to raise further complaints as he had been unable to fit all of the information onto the form. The landlord failed to provide a response despite acknowledging the complaint and stating it would respond by 9 December 2022.
The resident raised his concerns again in March and September 2023. The landlord failed to provide a stage 1 response and responded at stage 2 on 19 October 2023. It apologised for not providing a stage 1 response and for the delays. It offered £400 compensation comprising £40 for time and effort to get the complaint resolved, £110 for failing to investigate at stage 1, £50 for not providing a stage 1 response, and £200 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
In the resident’s complaint, he also raised concerns about the CCTV. While the landlord listed CCTV as part of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response, it failed to respond to this element of his complaint.
We appreciate that the landlord’s complaint handling was poor and this would likely have been frustrating for the resident. We would have made a finding of reasonable redress but for the fact it failed to fully respond to the resident’s concerns, such as the CCTV. We have, therefore made a finding of service failure and awarded an additional £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance as outlined above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the residents reports that he was unable to use his parking space.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about his service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s reports about delays in completing lift repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB caused by a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about communal repairs, cleaning, and the caretaking service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following actions within 4 weeks of this determination:
1. Pay directly to the resident the sum of £650 broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for time and trouble for failing to respond to his service charge queries.
  2. £50 for time and trouble for failing to respond to his CCTV concerns.
  3. £500 for its complaint handling failures offered in its complaint responses (This can be deducted if already paid).
2. Send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
3. Contact the resident to discuss his service charges. It must then provide a written response about the service charge increases, and his concerns. A copy of which must be provided to the resident and this Service.
4. Provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

Our findings of reasonable redress are made on the basis that the landlord pay to the resident the sums of £220 and £130 offered in its stage 2 responses for the parking and lift failings.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss his concerns about subletting in the building.
The landlord should consider the frequency of repairs and age of the lift. It should consider its planned maintenance programme and when the lift is likely to require renewal.