London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202321012)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321012

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 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 handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
4. The resident reported her kitchen was in need of repair on 29 June 2022. The landlord inspected the kitchen in August 2022. Following its inspection the landlord’s operative reported a new kitchen was needed. The landlord raised a further inspection as it needed more information. It completed a further inspection on 30 September 2022. The notes from the inspection said, “new kitchen required, one door missing, no other problems”.
5. The landlord raised a repair to the kitchen cupboard and plinths on 11 March 2023. The records indicate the appointment was cancelled.
6. The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs in March 2023. (the exact date is unclear). The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 17 March 2023. It said it had inspected the kitchen in September 2022 and decided it needed to replace the plinths and 1 cupboard. It had booked an appointment to complete the repairs for 4 April 2023.Its operative had used their “professional judgement” and decided it did not need to do a full kitchen replacement.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 13 April 2023. She said she was unhappy with its response as she was told by an operative that she would be getting a new kitchen. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 16 August 2023 and said:
   1. It restated its position the kitchen could be repaired. It said the resident had cancelled the repair visit for 4 April 2023 and had “refused the repair” because she had said she wanted a new kitchen.
   2. It said it would rearrange the kitchen repair if she wanted.
   3. It apologised for the delay in sending the complaint response, and offered £150 for its complaint handling.
8. The landlord raised another repair to the kitchen on 21 November 2023. Again, the notes reflect this appointment was “cancelled”.
9. The resident contacted us on 23 November 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs and wanted it to install a new kitchen.
10. The landlord did another inspection of the kitchen in January 2024. The notes from the inspection said the kitchen was “financially unrepairable”. The resident made another complaint to the landlord on 12 February 2024. She said she was unhappy about the lack of information she had received about the kitchen repairs.
11. The landlord sent another stage 1 complaint response on 13 February 2024. It is unclear what it said in its response, as it did not provide a copy of the response for our investigation.
12. The landlord inspected the kitchen again on 28 February 2024, and 20 March 2024 and told the resident a new kitchen was needed. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 March 2024. She said she was not happy she was told she would have to wait for her kitchen replacement.
13. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 16 April 2024. It explained it had raised a job for a kitchen replacement. It said it had missed the “cut off” for the kitchen to be replaced that financial year and it had been placed on the programme for 2025-26. It apologised for the delay in finding an “appropriate solution” and it had taken “many years” to have the issue resolved. It offered £280 for the delay in progressing with the kitchen issue, and £50 for “poor complaint handling”.
14. The landlord raised a repair to the worktops, plinth, and drawers in the kitchen on 21 April 2024. The information available indicates it agreed an appointment for the repairs to go ahead on 4 July 2024. The repair records provided for our investigation show the repairs went ahead on 9 October 2024.
15. The landlord told us, in May 2025, the resident’s kitchen was due for replacement in the financial year 2026-27.

Assessment and findings

16. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
17. The landlord’s repairs policy in operation in 2022 (when the resident first raised the issue) stated that it would attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs at a “mutually convenient appointment”. The landlord amended its policy in May 2023 to state routine repairs would be attended to in “an average of 25 calendar days”.
18. The landlord’s major works procedure states full replacements of kitchens are covered by the procedure. The procedure states that if 3 or more components need a major repair then a full replacement should be considered.
19. The resident contacted us in May 2025 and raised a concern that the delay in replacing the kitchen amounted to discrimination against her. The serious nature of this concern is acknowledged, whether the landlord committed discrimination is a complaint which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law.
20. As such it is not within the remit of this investigation to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. She may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter further. It is worth noting that we have considered the landlord’s response to the kitchen repairs/replacement, and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. What we have not done, is make a determination on whether the landlord’s actions amounted to discrimination in any legal sense.
21. When the resident raised concerns about the condition of her kitchen in June 2022, the landlord sought to inspect within a reasonable timeframe. The information available shows the resident was unavailable and cancelled some appointments in July and August 2022. The landlord then inspected in September 2022. The delay in inspecting was outside of the landlord’s control.
22. The landlord’s handling of the kitchen issue around that time caused the resident confusion. Its own notes from the inspection indicate the kitchen needed replacing, and the evidence indicates the resident was told this. We acknowledge the landlord was entitled to do a further inspection to decide whether the kitchen could be repaired or needed replacing. This was appropriate in order to effectively manage its own resources, which it is entitled to do. However, its communication with the resident was poor and it failed to manage her expectations about the change of position. This inconvenienced the resident.
23. There was a delay in raising repairs to the kitchen between its inspection of September 2022. The landlord did not raise the repair until April 2023. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. The information available indicates the resident cancelled the appointment for April 2023. When the landlord put this to her the resident did not dispute its claim. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the resident did cancel the repairs appointment for April 2023. This impacted on its ability to respond to the repair, and the delay was somewhat outside of its control.
24. We acknowledge the resident did not want the repair to go ahead because she wanted the landlord to replace the kitchen. It is not for us to determine if the kitchen needed replacing at that time. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its operatives. It used its stage 1 complaint response from April 2023 to outline its position. This went some way to putting right errors in its communication about the issue. It was a shortcoming in the landlord’s response that it did not address the resident’s concerns that she was of the view she was told the kitchen would be replaced. It was also an error not to address the length of time it had taken to raise the repairs. This inconvenienced the resident. The landlord missed an opportunity to apologise and put right errors in its handling of the matter.
25. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of August 2023, set out its position with regard to the kitchen replacement with consistency. This was appropriate. Again, it did not address the resident’s concerns that she was told this kitchen would be replaced. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord did not address a specific concern the resident raised as part of her complaint. This inconvenienced her. We do however acknowledge the landlord outlined its position on the kitchen replacement with consistency at that time.
26. The evidence shows the landlord sought to complete repairs to the kitchen in November 2023. Again, the evidence indicates the resident was unwilling to allow the repairs as she wanted the kitchen to be replaced. This impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond to the issue.
27. When the resident raised concerns again in January 2024 the landlord arranged an urgent inspection. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord decided it needed to replace the kitchen and arranged follow up inspections. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
28. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response, of April 2024, to set out its position on the kitchen replacement issue. It was appropriate to explain it had tried to repair kitchen. It was also appropriate to set out when it planned to replace the kitchen. It communicated with clarity and transparency. Considering the time the issue was outstanding, it was appropriate to apologise and offer compensation to the resident.
29. It was appropriate to arrange interim repairs in April 2024, considering it was not going to replace the kitchen until 2025. This is evidence it sought to improve the condition of the kitchen ahead of the replacement. The evidence shows it sought to arrange the repairs and agreed a date with the resident for July 2024. The evidence shows the repair went ahead 3 months after the initial agreement in October 2024. This was a delay that inconvenienced the resident.
30. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated it planned to replace the kitchen in the financial year 2025-26. We welcome the fact it appears to have completed extensive repairs while awaiting the replacement. However, we have seen no evidence it communicated its change in position to the resident (that it had moved the planned replacement to the financial year 2026 -27). The resident was inconvenienced by its lack of communication and it must explain its latest position to her now.
31. The landlord accepted there were errors in its handling of the kitchen repairs. The evidence shows its communication caused confusion and the matter was outstanding for a considerable period. The evidence also shows that some of the delay was outside the landlord’s control.
32. After the landlord’s final complaint response, the interim repairs were delayed and its communication about the change in position on the kitchen replacement was poor. We have therefore decided its final compensation offer did not fully put things right. We have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
33. Our remedies guidance sets out that an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. This depends on the severity of the failing and the impact on the resident. Considering, the failings identified above we have determined an order for a further £100 in compensation is appropriate to put things right. This is in addition to the landlord’s offer of £280 in compensation.

Complaint handling

34. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlord must send stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
35. The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint, of March 2023, within a reasonable timeframe. This was appropriate and the landlord adhered to the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code.
36. The landlord did not send the stage 2 complaint response, of August 2023, within a reasonable timeframe. It sent the response 4 months after the resident made the stage 2 complaint. She was inconvenienced by a protracted complaints process. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation for the delay. This is evidence it sought to put things right for the resident. It was a shortcoming in its response that it did not set out what it would do to prevent similar delays in the future. We recommend it does so in future delayed complaint responses.
37. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, of February 2024, within a reasonable timeframe. This was appropriate and the landlord adhered to the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. We asked the landlord for a copy of the complaint response it sent in February 2024 as part of our information request for this investigation. The landlord did not provide it. This is a failing in its record keeping and we have not been able to corroborate what it said in its response. The landlord’s failure to provide the response for this investigation did not have an overall impact on the outcome for the resident. However, we have made recommendations to promote learning for the landlord.
38. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response outside of its policy timeframes. We acknowledge any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive. We welcome the fact the landlord apologised, explained the reason for the delay, and offered compensation. This was appropriate and evidence it sought to put things right for the resident.
39. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. We consider the landlord’s offer of £200 in compensation for its complaint handling errors was reasonable to put things right for the resident in the circumstances.

Determination

40. In accordance with 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen.
41. In accordance with 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved errors in its complaint handling.

Orders

42. Within 4 week the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £380 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the kitchen repairs. Its offer of £280 should be deducted from this total if already paid.
    3. Write to the resident setting out when it plans to replace the kitchen. It must include an explanation of why its position changed after it issued its final complaint response in April 2024.

Recommendations

43. We recommend the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £200 it offered for errors in its complaint handling if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that the above compensation will be paid.
    2. Remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of:
       1. Addressing all aspects of a resident’s complaint in its response.
       2. A meaningful complaint investigation that shows learning and offers appropriate explanations for complaint handling delays.
       3. Retaining all complaint responses on its systems.