London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202331174)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331174

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

8 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 reports of repairs to the communal lifts.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder in a shared ownership scheme. The lease started on 9 June 2017. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder. The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat in a building with 2 communal lifts. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident reported issues with the lifts to the landlord since her lease started. In December 2023 the Ombudsman investigated a complaint raised by the resident about the landlord’s handling of her reports and made an order for the landlord to provide the resident with its plan to resolve any underlying lift repairs.
On 11 September 2023 the resident reported that both lifts were out of action. The landlord’s maintenance record shows 2 logs dated 12 September 2023. The logs stated:
1. one lift was stuck on the ground.
2. the other lift doors were making noise and taking 2-3 minutes to open, and that the emergency bell and button were constantly on.
On 4 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint which the landlord acknowledged on the same day. In her complaint, the resident stated that:
1. both lifts were out of service and broke down frequently.
2. she disputed that a contractor attended a broken lift on 11 September 2023 and had left it working. The contractor had marked the repair as complete.
3. she had called the landlord frequently to chase the repairs.
4. she was angry that there was no working lift available for a high rise building with over 30 flats.
On 17 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. The landlord provided a breakdown of lift repairs and stated the following:
1. one of the lifts was now in working order, however the other remained out of action as it required parts.
2. the supplier had not sent the parts, so the landlord had reordered them and was awaiting delivery.
3. the landlord had chased the contractor for an estimated delivery time for the parts and would update the resident once it had a response.
4. due to works still outstanding, the resident’s complaint would remain open until completion of the repairs.
5. it would review any compensation entitlement to for the period both lifts had been out of service.
6. It monitored contractors against key performance indicators, and the landlord would discuss this at length at the monthly contractor meeting.
On 16 November 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She told the landlord it had been almost a month since the stage 1 response and there had been no resolution. The resident said:
1. the lifts had only received partial repairs over a period of 2 and a half months, with issues still outstanding.
2. the dates in the stage 1 response were wrong, as the landlord’s breakdown of lift issues started in October instead of on 11 September 2023. The resident wanted this corrected.
3. lift breakdowns reoccurred just hours after the contractors had made repairs and closed their work orders as complete.
4. repair dates were not fulfilled.
5. she wanted to know why the landlord did not intervene to force the repairs sooner.
6. she wanted compensation for the lack of working lifts.
On 24 November 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It also sent a letter to all residents in the block apologising for the lift issues and offered compensation of £110, comprising of:
1. Right to Repair: £10.
2. distress for loss of communal service or facility: £40.
3. inconvenience for loss of communal service or facility: £60.
On 29 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord apologised that the resident remained unsatisfied with the stage 1 decision but did not uphold the complaint. It stated:
1. it had investigated at stage 1 in line with its complaint’s procedure.
2. It had calculated its compensation offer at stage 1 in line with its compensation policy.
3. the compensation of £110 was reoffered to the resident.
On 30 November 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She stated that she was unhappy with recurring lift outages and was seeking proper remediation to ensure the lifts were in good working order moving forward. She also wanted appropriate compensation, considering the stress and inconvenience she had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident said she had reported issues with the lifts since 2017. The resident previously brought a complaint to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of her reports. We are unable to consider complaints which seek to raise again matters which we, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider events after 26 May 2023, when the resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
In relation to this complaint, the resident told the Ombudsman that issues with the lifts continued after the landlord’s stage 2 response. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us and it is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord.
Accordingly, this investigation will only consider issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord up to the 29 November 2023. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said that she wanted her service charges reimbursed. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the level of service charges and would not be able to tell the landlord to refund those charges. The resident may wish to seek advice from the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) regarding this aspect of her complaint as the level of service charge payable is something that falls within the FTT remit. We have however, assessed any distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal lifts

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete everyday repairs to a good standard and within a reasonable time. It says that across all its homes, it is responsible for maintaining the common entrance ways, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, and other communal areas.
The policy states the following times for repairs:
1. routine day to day repairs: complete in an average of 25 calendar days.
2. emergency works: attend within 24 hours.
3. emergency works that occur out of hours: attend within four hours.
It states that it can compensate residents for loss off communal services and facilities that are not resolved within agreed times, and lists the following reasons as circumstances where it may offer compensation:
1. where it fails to deal satisfactorily with repairs that it is responsible for, and the resident continues to live in poor conditions longer than is reasonable.
2. where its failure has caused a loss of facilities and/or amenities beyond the agreed response times.
The resident reported issues with both lifts to the landlord on 11 September 2023. This Service has not seen a call log for the landlord, so it is not possible to say what response the resident received when she made her report, however work orders were raised for each lift the following day with repair timescales given as 24 hours for one lift and 5 working days for the other. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s report and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
Between 12 September and 13 October 2023, a maintenance log recorded the following:
1. 12 September: Work order raised. Engineer to attend.
2. 18 September: Resident reported a lift not working. Contractor to reattend within 4 hours.
3. 22 September: Resident called chasing repair. The contractor advised it was waiting for parts.
4. 27 September: Resident called chasing repair. The contractor advised that 1 lift was working. The resident stated 1 lift had been grounded since 15 September and was still waiting for parts.
5. 4 October: Another tenant chased repairs. Contractor to reattend same day.
6. 12 October: Contractor told the landlord that an engineer had been scheduled for 11 October, but there were no notes about the visit.
7. 13 October: Resident chased for an update on the repairs. The landlord spoke to the contractor who advised they were waiting on parts.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs, found on our website, states that landlords should inform residents of any delays and explain why these are necessary. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided updates to the resident and given timescales of when it expected completion of the repairs. That it did not was unreasonable.
Between 12 September and 6 November 2023, the landlord attended to issues with the lifts at least 5 times. Incidents were attended to in isolation, and repairs were carried out following reports, but the landlord failed to look at the cumulative effect of ongoing and multiple repairs to the lifts. The evidence shows the landlord sent at least 16 emails to its contractor attempting to confirm the status of repairs.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs states that landlords should monitor progress and have accessible records of appointments, inspection reports, work orders and completion dates for its own repairs and for its contractor’s. The evidence has shown unreasonably poor levels of communication between the landlord and its contractors as well as inadequate monitoring of its repairs. The lack of management of the repairs resulted in the resident having to chase, which would likely have added to her distress and inconvenience.
In the resident’s complaint on 4 October 2023, she said that a contractor had closed a work order for the lifts despite not carrying out any repairs. The evidence shows that the contractors attended the lifts repeatedly, with some repairs not completed due to requiring parts. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience. Whilst this Service recognises that obtaining parts can fall somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, it is the landlord’s responsibility to manage its contractors and ensure the completion of work orders. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the disputed contractor visit on 11 September 2023. This was a failure to effectively monitor its repairs.
In its stage 1 response dated 17 October 2023, the landlord stated that one lift was now working but the second remained out of action whilst waiting for parts. The landlord was unable to provide the resident with a time in which the parts would arrive or for when it would complete the repairs. It advised it would keep the complaint open until the repairs were complete. The landlord failed to identify its poor communication with the resident and did not acknowledge the time and inconvenience caused by her frequently having to chase for updates on the repairs. This was unreasonable and likely added to the resident’s distress.
With the repairs delayed, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to consider a contingency should the lift break down again, leaving both lifts inaccessible. The landlord offered no contingency plan or any reassurance that it would resolve the issues quickly. This was unreasonable and would have added to the resident’s concerns.
On 16 November 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that after almost a month she had received no resolution and that in over 2 months, the lifts had only received partial repairs. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 24 November 2023 and recognised that the repairs had exceeded its policy timescales. On the same day, the landlord wrote to all residents in the building, apologising for the interruption to lift services between 12 September and 14 November 2023. It offered each resident a total compensation of £110, comprising of:
1. Right to Repair: £10.
2. distress for loss of communal service or facility: £40.
3. inconvenience for loss of communal service or facility: £60.
In the same letter the landlord stated that a lack of communication from its contractors had caused delays, and that it would discuss this at length at their next meeting. Whilst it was reasonable of the landlord to have looked at the delays in making the repairs and to offer redress, the landlord failed to offer any reassurance that the same issues would not continue. The landlord’s response to the delays and in addressing the contractor’s performance was unreasonable as it failed to act to ensure the lifts were repaired in a timely manner.
On 29 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It apologised that she was unsatisfied with the stage 1 decision but did not uphold her complaint. The landlord stated that it had investigated at stage 1 in line with its complaint’s procedure and reoffered the resident a total £110 compensation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s time and inconvenience in having to frequently chase for updates. That the landlord failed to address this is unreasonable.
The resident had previously raised a complaint about the issues with the lifts which the Ombudsman investigated in December 2023. In that complaint, the resident had been unhappy with the frequent lift breakdowns and said the landlord had not provided a clear solution to correct the lifts underlying faults. The Ombudsman’s investigation into the complaint identified the following:
1. after continuous breakdowns, the landlord should have surveyed the lifts at the earliest opportunity to investigate if there was an underlying fault.
2. it should have reviewed the number of breakdowns since installation, rather than over a short period of time.
3. its communication with the resident was poor, resulting in her having to frequently chase for updates.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs states landlords should:
1. identify what went wrong and make changes to prevent it happening again.
2. monitor repairs and complaints to spot recurring issues, for example, in a particular location or with a specific contractor.
The complaint raised in this investigation highlights the same issues regarding a lack of action, a short-sighted view of lift function and poor communication from the landlord. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords should look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or systems to the benefit of all residents. The stage 2 response from the landlord was unreasonable as it failed to address weaknesses and learn lessons from previous failings.
While it was reasonable that the landlord identified its failure to adhere to its timescales and offered compensation, this investigation has identified several failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal lifts. In summary, the landlord:
1. failed to manage the resident’s expectations or communicate effectively regarding the repairs, providing no updates until the resident chased.
2. failed to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience likely caused by the poor communication.
3. failed to effectively monitor the progress of the repairs.
4. failed in effective communication with its contractors, resulting in delays to the repairs.
5. failed to address a disputed contractor’s attendance on 11 September 2023.
6. failed to complete repairs within its own policy timescales.
7. failed to take reasonable action to ensure it repaired the lifts in a timely manner.
8. failed to learn lessons from the resident’s previous complaint and implement changes which could have enabled efficient handling of the repairs.
The lack of accessible lifts combined with the above failures would likely have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord apologised and offered redress for the period when both lifts were out of service. The resident lived on the first floor with no recorded vulnerabilities to suggest any issues using the stairs, and on many occasions, one working lift was available.
However, this investigation has identified failures above that the landlord failed to recognise or address. As a result of these, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal lifts. After carefully considering the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £400 has been made. This includes the £110 already offered by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states a stage 1 response should be issued within 10 working days of acknowledgement of the complaint, and a stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint’s policy is in line with the Code.
The resident raised her complaint on 4 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day and issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 17 October 2023, 9 working days later. This was a reasonable time for a response from the landlord, and within its policy timescales.
The resident was not satisfied with the stage 1 response and requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 16 November 2023. The landlord responded on the same day stating both lifts were working and offered redress to all resident for the delays in completing the repairs. The resident still wished to escalate her complaint, and the landlord acknowledged the escalation on 24 November 2023. Although this was one day beyond its 5 day timescale for acknowledging the escalation there was no detriment to the resident for this and this is determined as a shortcoming in the landlord’s response.
On 29 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. This was 3 working days after acknowledging the escalation request, and in line with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policies and the Code. Although there was a slight shortcoming in acknowledging the escalation this caused no detriment to the resident, therefore the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal lifts.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of reports of repairs to the communal lifts. The landlord may deduct the £110 offered in its complaint response if it can evidence this has already been paid.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its processes for managing and monitoring repairs, ensuring effective communication with its contractors and residents. When delays are unavoidable, the landlord should ensure it updates affected residents.