From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202307640)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307640

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 April 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 regarding:
    1. Communal repairs to a wooden door frame and lights.
    2. Tree management.
    3. An electrical repair to the resident’s property.
    4. Pest control in the communal area.
    5. Condition of communal areas including the stairway, walls and flooring outside the lift.
    6. Grounds maintenance.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property where she has lived since October 2010. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 22 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that she had reported a swarm of flies in the communal area on 19 May 2023. The landlord had put some disinfectant down the rubbish chute but the flies were still there. She complained that the grass was overgrown and the contractor was not maintaining the area to a satisfactory standard. Finally, she complained about the condition of the communal areas. She said there were cracks in the walls and stairway and peeling paint on the walls.
  3. On 6 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised that it had not completed the grounds maintenance to a satisfactory standard. It said it had arranged for its contractor to clear the area and would monitor this in the future to ensure it met service standards. It confirmed it had raised a repair to assess the communal stairway and would schedule the works when it received the quotation. In relation to the poor condition of the area outside the lift and the fly infestation, it said it had inspected both issues and would take action to resolve both within due course and then monitor. Finally, it said it was awaiting a response from its major works team as to when it would include the resident’s block in its decoration programme. It said it would update the resident when it received the information.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 13 July 2023. She confirmed the landlord had completed the repair to the stairway. With regards to the area outside the lift, she said the landlord had put hazard tape in front of the lift to highlight the issue. It had not resolved the issue. She said, although the landlord’s initial action had worked, the flies were back.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 September 2023. It apologised for the delay and not resolving the complaint within a timely manner. It said this was due to a backlog in complaints. It agreed that it would refund the ground maintenance service charges at the end of the financial year for each month the contractor did not attend. It confirmed it was regularly washing the area where the flies had been. It had used insecticides and the issue was under control. It would monitor the area on a regular basis. It said it had raised repairs for the stairway and the missing carpet tiles outside the lift. It confirmed it had not included the communal painting in that years planned investment programme, which it said was fully committed. It would arrange a survey to assess the current condition and, subject to the results, it would either place the work on the current year’s reserve list or, if it did not complete the work that year, it would consider adding it to a future year. The landlord offered compensation of £130, which it broke down as follows:
    1. £30 – review of stage 2 decision
    2. £60 – inconvenience and distress
    3. £40 – time and effort
  6. As an outcome the resident asked the landlord to reimburse her service charges for grounds maintenance for 2022-23 and 2023- 24. She also said she wanted the landlord to compensate her for lack of service. She wanted the landlord to replace the missing carpet tiles outside the lift and to resolve the issue of the flies. Finally she asked the landlord to confirm when it would complete the redecoration works to the communal areas.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. We are not free to investigate every complaint brought to us. The rules by which we operate, called the Scheme, set out what we can and cannot investigate. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”

  1. The complaints specified in paragraphs 1(a)-(c) were not included in the resident’s complaint from May 2023. We can see that the landlord has responded to some of these issues as separate complaints. As outlined above, the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which have not exhausted a complaint procedure. As we have not seen evidence that these complaints have fully exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, we will not investigate these issues as part of this complaint.

Scope of the investigation

  1. We are aware that the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the grounds maintenance in 2022 and the landlord issued a stage 1 response in October 2022. We are also aware that the resident has continued to report dissatisfaction with the grounds maintenance service after September 2023.
  2. In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman has limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint dated 23 May 2023, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 19 September 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. There is no evidence that the resident’s complaint from 2022 or her continued dissatisfaction have fully exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process and, therefore, do not form part of this investigation.

Pest control

  1. The resident reported a swarm of flies on the second floor of the building on 19 May 2023. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will deal with all pest infestations in communal areas, internal and external.
  2. Landlords need to make sure their homes are free from hazards such as pest infestations, this would include communal areas. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the area to check for hazards. This is especially important in multi-occupied buildings with common service ducts, such as rubbish chutes. Landlords should maintain storage areas for rubbish to reduce, so far as possible, invasion by pests. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
  3. We have not seen the landlord’s communal cleaning policy or procedure and therefore we cannot fully assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with its policy. However, it is not disputed that the landlord inspected the area and put disinfectant down the rubbish chute to stop the flies. The resident confirmed the landlord’s actions had initially worked but reported that the flies were back in her escalation in July 2023.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was regularly washing the area and it had used insecticides. It believed the fly infestation was under control and it would continue to monitor.
  5. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  6. Due to lack of adequate records we are unable to establish when and how often the landlord washed the area and how it satisfied itself that the issue was under control.
  7. Taking everything into account, the landlord took some steps to put things right following the resident’s initial report. But its record keeping was poor and there is no evidence to show what steps it took to resolve the issue following the resident’s escalation. This was a failure.
  8. We would consider this to amount to service failure and the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise its failures impacted her.

Communal areas

  1. The resident complained about cracks in the communal areas, staircases and peeling paint on the internal communal walls. It is not clear from the records when the resident raised the issue about the missing carpet tiles from outside the lift on the second floor, but the landlord logged this issue as part of the resident’s initial complaint and responded to it in its stage 1 response, which was reasonable.
  2. Under the tenancy agreement, and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways and other communal areas.
  3. The landlord’s estate management policy says that it will inspect and assess the condition and upkeep of the communal areas by completing regular inspections. We can see that the landlord completed estate inspections on a monthly basis between January 2023 and September 2023, which was appropriate. We can see that the landlord noted the issue concerning decoration of the internal communal walls in its inspections, which it noted was outstanding from August 2022. However, it is concerning that the inspections did not identify any issues with the damaged concrete on the stairway or the missing carpet tiles, despite there being specific inspection points for these.

Stairway

  1. Following the resident’s complaint the landlord appropriately raised a repair to the damaged concrete on the communal stairs on 23 May 2023. The landlord completed the repair on 27 June 2023.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy does not give a specific timeframe for completing communal repairs. However, landlord’s ought to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. As this issue was located in a communal area, no notice needed to be given to the landlord of the repair. It took a complaint from the resident for the landlord to schedule the matter for a repair. This was a failure. Following this notice the landlord did not complete the repair in what could be considered a reasonable timeframe. This was another failure.

Peeling paint

  1. The resident raised concerns about the peeling paint on walls in the communal areas. She said that it made the building look scruffy and she was reluctant to invite visitors to her property as a result. She asked the landlord to let her know when it planned to complete this work.
  2. It is normal practice for landlords to complete internal decoration of communal areas as part of a cyclical maintenance programme. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will periodically decorate any shared areas. It does not give a specific timeframe for how often it will complete this work.
  3. When the resident raised this issue with the landlord in May 2023 it appropriately contacted the relevant department so that it could provide a full response to the resident’s query. In its final response it explained to the resident about its planned investment programme. It also informed her of its intention to survey the building to assess the condition of the decorations and that it would consider adding the building to its programme for a future year’s investment.
  4. While the landlord’s response was reasonable, it should have provided a further update to the resident following the survey. This should have included what the survey found and when the landlord planned to complete the redecoration works. This was a failure.

Missing carpet tiles

  1. As outlined above, it is not clear from the records when the resident first raised this issue with the landlord. However, in its stage 1 response the landlord said it had inspected the area and would take action to resolve the issue in due course.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says that it is responsible for all floor coverings in communal areas. Its estate management policy says that it will complete visual checks to communal areas to ensure health and safety compliance. The landlord completed regular inspections both before and during the resident’s complaint. There are 2 specific points in its inspection report which refer to floors and trip hazards. It is concerning that there is no evidence that the landlord identified the missing carpet tiles or possible trip hazard as part of its inspections.
  3. Following the resident’s escalation the landlord raised a repair on 12 September 2023, which it marked complete on 13 September 2023 with no action taken. The landlord noted this was a potential trip hazard and it had put temporary black and yellow tape in place. Due to lack of adequate records we are unable to establish what further action the landlord took to resolve this issue, if any.
  4. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to treat this repair as a priority. This is because of the risk it presented. The landlord should have identified the repair as part of its routine inspections. It should have then completed the repair within a reasonable timeframe and not rely on the resident bringing it to the landlord’s attention. This is because it is in a communal area and under the landlord’s control. There is no evidence that it did this, which was a failure.
  5. In summary, the landlord delayed in completing the repair to the stairway, failed to provide updates to the resident regarding redecoration of the communal areas and failed to repair or replace the missing carpet tiles within a reasonable timeframe.
  6. We would consider these failures to collectively amount to maladministration and the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise its failures impacted her.

Grounds maintenance

  1. On 22 May 2023 the resident complained that the grass was overgrown and the landlord’s contractor was not maintaining the area properly. She provided evidence by way of photographs and video footage.
  2. The landlord’s estate management policy says that it will maintain the communal grounds to a good standard. It will cut the grass regularly and will keep flower and shrub beds neat and tidy. It will also apply weed treatment when required. The resident pays for this service via her service charges.
  3. The landlord monitors the grounds maintenance as part of its estate inspections. It completed inspections on 18 May 2023 and 16 June 2023 and marked grassed areas, landscaping and paths as acceptable. This is contrary to the resident’s reports. There are no photographs included in the estate inspection reports which means that we are unable to establish exactly what the landlord found on those dates and whether the areas inspected were acceptable or not.
  4. The landlord should have procedures in place which sets out what work its contractor will complete, how often and how it will be evidenced. Such as completion of work slips. This would provide the landlord with a paper trail to show when its contractors had attended and what work it had completed. The paper trail, together with its own inspections, would show that the contractor had attended and completed the work to an acceptable standard. Further to this the landlord has a duty to ensure value for money in its service charges expenditure and it cannot achieve this if it is not properly monitoring its contractors.
  5. In its final response the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident’s service charges for each month its contractor did not complete the grounds maintenance. It said it would do this at the end of the financial year. While this was an appropriate resolution, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord has issued this reimbursement. We have therefore made an order below that the landlord review this and pay any outstanding amount to the resident as it promised to do in its complaint response.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable in that it arranged for its contractor to attend and clear the areas of concern. It also said it would continue to monitor this issue in the future. However, the landlord failed to monitor its contractors effectively to ensure the grounds maintenance was completed to a satisfactory standard.
  7. We would consider this to amount to service failure and the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise its failures impacted her.

Summary and conclusion

  1. In summary, the landlord:
    1. Failed to keep adequate records of actions taken to resolve the fly infestation.
    2. Delayed in completing the repair to the stairway.
    3. Failed to provide an update to the resident regarding redecoration of the communal areas.
    4. Failed to repair or replace the missing carpet tiles outside the lift.
    5. Failed to monitor and have appropriate oversight of its grounds maintenance.
  2. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the inconvenience caused to the resident for not being able to resolve her concerns within a timely manner.
  4. It showed its attempt to put things right by trying to resolve the fly infestation, arranging for its contractors to clear the overgrown areas, completing the repair to the stairway and agreeing to survey the building regarding the redecoration of the communal areas. It also offered compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused.
  5. It demonstrated learning from outcomes in its stage 2 complaint response by acknowledging that feedback from residents provides it with an opportunity to implement change and improve service delivery.
  6. The landlord offered a total of £100 to recognise the inconvenience and distress, time and trouble caused to the resident. This offer was not, in our opinion, proportionate to the failures identified in our investigation. However, we should also recognise that the impact on the resident for the failures would have been lower as they related to issues which did not significantly affect the enjoyment of her home.
  7. Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, a fairer level of compensation would be £300. This correctly recognises the distress and inconvenience caused and the time taken by the resident to raise these issues with the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 23 May 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 June 2023, which was 10 working days. However, there was a failure in that the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint, as per its policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022).
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 July 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 44 days later and provided it stage 2 response 5 days after that, on 19 September 2023. This delay prevented the resident from progressing her complaint through the landlord’s complaint process so that she could bring the issue to this Service for investigation. When the landlord knew it was not going to meet the response timescale, it should have contacted the resident to discuss an extension. It did not do this, which was a breach of paragraph 5.14 of the Code. The landlord accepted its failings, apologised for the delay, provided an explanation and offered compensation of £30.
  3. The Ombudsman considers the above to amount to service failure. Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, a fairer level of compensation would be £100. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her concerns about communal repairs to a wooden door frame and lights is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her concerns about tree management is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her concerns about an electrical repair to the resident’s property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about pest control in the communal areas.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of communal areas including the stairway, walls and flooring outside the lift.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance.
  7. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £400 which is comprised of:
    1. £50in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about pest control.
    2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the communal area.
    3. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance.
    4. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
    1. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
    2. Complete the repair to the floor outside the lift on the second floor. If the landlord has already completed this repair it should provide this Service with evidence.
    3. Provide an update to the resident on when it will add the communal redecoration works to its planned investment programme.
    4. Complete a review of its stage 2 response to establish if it reimbursed the resident for the months its grounds maintenance contractor did not attend. If reimbursement has been made, it must provide evidence of this. If it has not processed the reimbursement the landlord must confirm to the resident and this Service how many months service charges it will reimburse and confirm how much this amounts to. Payment must then be made to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its monitoring of grounds maintenance to identify any improvements it can make to its processes and practices for monitoring the works completed, ensuring accurate record keeping, appropriate oversight, and that works are completed to a satisfactory standard.