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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202300355)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300355

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a broken front door lock.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a purpose-built block of flats. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 5 February 2023, the resident raised a repair with the landlord as she was unable to lock her front door. She made a complaint the following day explaining an operative had attended the previous day and had advised her the front door was under warranty and therefore it was the developers’ responsibility to repair the lock. The resident said the operative was not a locksmith and lacked the appropriate tools to complete the repair. She said that as a result, she could not secure her home overnight.
  3. On 9 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It accepted the resident’s account of events and confirmed that it had raised a job for a locksmith to attend that day. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. On the same day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She said the front door had remained unsecured for 4 days which warranted higher compensation.
  5. On 8 March 2023, the landlord told the resident that it could not provide a timeframe for its stage 2 complaint response due to a backlog of complaints.
  6. On 27 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to our service as she had not received a response to her stage 2 complaint. We contacted the landlord and asked it to issue a response to the resident.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 6 July 2023. It repeated its earlier findings and confirmed the resident’s front door lock had since been repaired. The landlord awarded a further £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays and the need to chase for a response.
  8. The resident told us that she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord and that she wanted a long-term commitment to improve response times and better communication overall.

Assessment and findings

Legal policy and framework

  1. Landlords must consider the condition and safety of their properties using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), a risk-based framework aimed at identifying and minimising potential health and safety hazards. Under HHSRS, landlord have a duty to ensure properties are secure against unauthorised entry and maintain overall safety. When potential hazards are identified, landlords are expected to take preventative measured and implement improvement works as a priority to address these issues, in line with their obligations under HHSRS.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, which includes external doors and primary locks.
  3. The repairs policy states that where a repair presents an immediate danger to the resident, the landlord will attend within 24 hours to make the situation safe. For day-to-day repairs, it aims to complete works within an average of 25 calendar days.
  4. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If the landlord requires an extension at either stage, this should not exceed an additional 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances, it may require more time and will direct the resident to this service if they are unhappy with the delay.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if there has been a failure in its service, it will consider awarding compensation. It may offer discretionary compensation where its failures have caused distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident in an effort to put things right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a broken door lock

  1. The resident reported that she was unable to lock her front door on 5 February 2023. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend the same day, which met its emergency response timescale for repairs posing a risk to health and safety. However, the evidence shows that the operative did not complete the repair and left the property without securing the door. In line with its duties under HHSRS, the landlord should have taken immediate steps to make the door safe – either by sending a qualified locksmith or applying a temporary security measure.
  2. In emergency cases involving resident safety, we would expect landlords to act first to resolve the immediate risk and resolve any liability or cost issues separately. By failing to do so, the landlord left the resident exposed to avoidable harm and distress and likely undermined her confidence in its ability to manage urgent repairs.
  3. The landlord’s records show that the repair to the front door lock was completed on 9 February 2023, 4 days after the resident’s report. This exceeded the landlord’s emergency repairs timescale. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord accepted this delay, apologised for the inconvenience caused, and offered the resident £50 compensation. Where a landlord accepts failings, our role is to assess whether the redress was fair and resolved the complaint appropriately. This includes considering whether the offer aligned with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  4. In this case, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response showed an effort to put things right by acknowledging its failing and offering redress. While the situation was understandably upsetting, the landlord accepted responsibility and its actions at this stage showed a degree of reflection and a willingness to address the impact on the resident.
  5. In cases involving a single or limited number of failings in the landlord’s service delivery, the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, available on our website, states that redress in the range of £50 to £100, is generally appropriate to put things right. On balance, the redress offered was a proportionate response to the service failure identified and in line with what we would have ordered the landlord to pay the resident, if it had not done so already.
  6. In view of the landlord’s timely response to the initial report, its acknowledgment of service failure, and the steps it took to provide redress, we find that the complaint about the landlord’s response to the broken front door lock has been reasonably resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 February 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 3 working days later, in line with its complaints policy.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 February 2023, but the landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 6 July 2023 – 102 working days later. This significantly exceeded its published timescale of 20 working days and the 10-working day extension permitted under its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord said the delay was due to a backlog of complaints but gave no revised timescale, despite the resident chasing for updates in March, May, and June 2023. This lack of communication left the resident uncertain about when she would receive a response and likely caused frustration and a loss of confidence in the complaints process. The absence of a clear timeframe also indicated poor planning, a lack of ownership, and suggests the complaint was not being actively managed.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will signpost residents to our service if they remain unhappy with delays in responding to a complaint, but this should not replace its duty to respond and resolve matters in line with its policy. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, available on our website, landlords must keep residents informed if delays occur, provide clear revised timeframes, and ensure complaint processes remain accessible throughout. The landlord failed to meet these expectations with the resident only receiving a response to her stage 2 complaint after intervention from this service.
  5. As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay in issuing a response and the inconvenience caused by needing to chase. While the offer did not excuse the significant delay or lack of communication, it reflected an effort to put things right. The amount offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, and what we would have ordered the landlord to pay the resident, if it had not done so already
  6. Therefore, we find that the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint was reasonably resolved.
  7. The resident told us she wanted the landlord to make a long-term commitment to improving communication and response times. While we are satisfied that the landlord provided reasonable redress in this case, we recommend that it takes steps to strengthen its approach to complaint handling and service communication going forward. In particular, the landlord should review how it manages escalations, monitors outstanding responses, and keeps residents informed during periods of high demand. This action should be used to inform any future service improvements or staff training.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the broken front door lock.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord takes steps to strengthen its approach to complaint handling and service communication. In particular, the landlord should review how it manages escalations, monitors outstanding responses, and keeps residents informed during periods of high demand. This action should be used to inform any future service improvements or staff training.