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) (202346173)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346173 / 202346181

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 requests for:
    1. information on the service charges for the 2024 to 2025 financial year.
    2. an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy. He lives in a first floor, one-bedroom flat within a two-storey converted house, consisting of two properties. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded mental health vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident had raised separate complaints with the landlord about both issues considered in this report. He then escalated both complaints to the Ombudsman. The resident has agreed for us to consider both issues together in one report.
  3. The resident previously complained to the landlord about the service charges, in January 2020. The resident escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman, which we considered in case 202013904. The case was determined on 25 April 2023. We ordered the landlord to seek legal advice on whether the introduction of service charges it carried out was in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement.
  4. On 9 August 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident about the order we made. It said it had obtained legal advice and accepted that it could not rely on the existing terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement to introduce and charge for the services.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 January 2024. He was unhappy that the landlord would not provide him with an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) and wanted to raise a formal complaint about this. He said that he needed this to apply to the warm home scheme and felt he was being “fobbed off” by the landlord.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 January 2024. It told the resident EPCs expire after 10 years, and a new one was only needed when a property was marketed for rent or sale. It noted the resident’s dissatisfaction and apologised it could not help with the matter.
  7. On 23 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s records show that it advised him this would not change the outcome, and he might have to wait a few months for its response, due to its backlog of stage 2 complaints.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint acknowledgement letter on 5 February 2024. On the same day it also sent a rent increase notification letter to the resident. This set out his rent and service charges for the 2024 to 2025 financial year.
  9. On 12 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord, about the service charges on his account. He advised it, that none of the service charges were applicable to him. He said he had the same issue every year, wanted the charges removed from his account and the money refunding to housing benefit. He requested the landlord pay him £250 compensation for the inconvenience this had caused him.
  10. The landlord responded to the resident on 13 February 2024. Its letter explained the details of the service charges it was seeking to recover from the resident. It said it was happy to discuss the resident’s contribution and considered the complaint closed.
  11. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested it escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s records do not show when it escalated the resident’s complaint.
  12. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 March 2024. It said it had phoned the resident to discuss its letter of 13 February 2024, and the complaint had exhausted its internal process. It apologised that the resident remained unhappy with the decision.
  13. On 14 March 2024 the resident contacted us. He was unhappy that the landlord would not provide him with a new EPC and said it had not yet sent its stage 2 complaint response on the matter.
  14. The resident contacted us again on 21 March 2024. He was unhappy that following our determination of case 202013904, the landlord was now asking him to pay service charges again.
  15. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on the EPC issue, on 21 March 2024. The landlord said the findings of its stage 1 complaint response, were correct. There was no requirement for it to provide a new EPC and said the resident accepted this decision during a phone call. It recognised there was a delay in providing the resident with its stage 2 response and awarded him £30 compensation to reflect this.

Post internal complaints process

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 May 2024. It advised him it had refunded the service charge costs for 2023 to 2024 and 2024 to 2025 financial years, to the local authority’s housing benefit department.
  2. On 6 September 2024, the landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said that it had applied a credit to the resident’s rent account on 17 April 2024, for the service charge costs for 2023 to 2024 and 2024 to 2025 financial years. The landlord then identified it needed to refund further charges and reversed this credit. On 11 June 2024 it applied a revised credit for the resident’s service charge costs of the previous 6 financial years. It said legally it did not have to refund any charges before then. It apologised to the resident for the trouble this had caused him and closed the complaint.
  3. On 11 September 2024, the resident told us that he had spoken with the Energy Ombudsman, who told him since 2020 landlords have needed EPCs for properties they manage. He stated he has health concerns, and his mental health had particularly suffered from the stress he had gone through with the landlord.
  4. The resident told us he believed the landlord only refunded the service charge costs due to his involvement. He did not understand why he had to get involved and this placed a lot of responsibility on his shoulders. He said he was seeking compensation for the time, inconvenience and stress this caused him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with this matter, we must advise this would fall outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to seek legal advice should he wish to discuss the matter further. Such matters will not form part of this investigation. However, we can consider if the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.
  2. The resident has said that the landlord’s actions have affected his mental health. Whilst we do not dispute this it is important to explain that it is outside this Service’s remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions, or inaction, and the resident’s health conditions. However, within this report we have considered the general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Request for further information on the service charges for the 2024 to 2025 financial year.

  1. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 defines a service charge as an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent. This is payable for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or the landlord’s management costs.
  2. A landlord’s power to recover a service charge and a tenant’s obligation to pay it, are governed by the conditions in the tenancy agreement. This will set out details of what the landlord can and cannot charge for and the proportion of the charge that tenants will have to pay.
  3. Following our determination of case 202013904, on 25 April 2023, the landlord sought legal advice on its ability to recover service charges from the resident. This advice instructed the landlord that it could not rely on the existing terms of its tenancy agreement to introduce and charge for services.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 August 2023, to confirm it was unable to recover service charges from him. As he paid his rent through housing benefit it said it would contact the local authority about it not being able to recover service charges. The landlord should have resolved the issue at this point, and it is unclear why it did not. It is reasonable to conclude at this stage, the resident considered the matter closed and the landlord would not apply service charges to his rent account in future. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence of it contacting the local authority. The resident has provided evidence that indicates the local authority were not aware of the issue, until he notified it on 14 June 2024.
  5. On 5 February 2024, the landlord issued its rent increase notification letter to the resident. This included a breakdown of service charges it would be recovering from him. It is unclear why the landlord did not follow the legal advice and recognise it could not recover service charges from the resident.
  6. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. A failure to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
  7. Had the landlord identified it was unable to recover service charges from the resident, it would have meant he would have avoided the inconvenience of having to complain about the issue again. The failure of the landlord to identify its actions were wrong, resulted in the resident raising a complaint with it on 12 February 2024.
  8. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) states, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the landlord must ask the resident for clarification. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
  9. The resident’s complaint to the landlord clearly shows, he rightly believed the service charges were not applicable to him and that he had the same issue every year. There is no record that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint. Had it done so, it could have clarified why the resident believed the service charges were not applicable to him.
  10. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 13 February 2024, did not set out the complaint definition and only addressed the reasonableness of the service charges, rather than the points the resident had raised. This meant it missed the opportunity to consider and investigate the historic nature of the issue. Had it done so, it would have identified the issue had already been through its internal complaints process, determined by the Ombudsman, and it had received legal advice following this. This information would have been of critical importance to resolving the resident’s complaint at an early stage. This failure will have caused the resident detriment and unnecessarily damaged the landlord and tenant relationship.
  11. Having failed to identify the historic information about the service charge issue, available to it, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also did not set out the terms of the tenancy agreement it was relying on to recover the charges. The landlord’s complaint response is likely to have exacerbated the situation, as it had previously advised the resident it had no legal basis to recover the service charges from him.
  12. The landlord’s letter also does not make it clear this was its stage 1 complaint response, until the final page, when it provides advice on how to escalate the complaint. This is likely to have caused the resident some confusion.
  13. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and requested it escalate his complaint to stage 2. There is no record in the evidence when this happened. The landlord’s complaints policy states when it escalates a complaint to stage 2, it will contact the complainant to give them the opportunity to explain their viewpoint. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it did this, which disadvantaged the resident, as he was unable to explain the issue had previously been through the landlord’s complaints process.
  14. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 March 2024. The response was of a poor standard and appears dismissive to the resident’s complaint, by simply advising the stage 1 response letter outlined what the service charges were. The landlord’s failure to again recognise it could not recover service charges from the resident is likely to have caused him further confusion.
  15. The resident contacted us on 21 March 2024, due to major concerns the landlord had “not stuck to the determination from the previous case”. He said he had to investigate the issue himself, which had caused him stress and inconvenience, which should not have occurred.
  16. The Code states, a positive complaint handling culture is integral to the effectiveness with which landlords resolve disputes. Landlords must use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord has failed to demonstrate this in either of its complaint responses and it is a concern that it did not identify the resident’s previous complaint as intelligence, to effectively resolve his concerns.
  17. In the Ombudsman’s special report on L&Q (July 2023) the landlord said it was overhauling its complaints handling, investing in additional staff, training and other resources, prioritising efficiency and good communication, and embedding learning from complaints in its process. It is a concern that the landlord has not demonstrated these service improvements, within its complaint response to the resident. It is reasonable to conclude that in applying the service charge to the resident again, the landlord failed to embed learning from complaints in its response to his complaint.
  18. The resident had to spend time and effort to resolve the complaint, which he had already done in his previous complaint that we considered in 2023. He believes that had he not done so, then the landlord would not have refunded the service charges to housing benefit. The landlord’s complaints responses did not recognise it had failed to follow the legal advice received and did not apologise to the resident for this. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether it communicated the previous determination of the Ombudsman to the complaint handler. However, the absence of any mention of this in either complaint responses suggest it did not consider this as part of its investigation.
  19. It is a concern that the landlord continued to apply the service charge to the resident, causing him unnecessary distress on an issue that he rightly believed the Ombudsman had already resolved previously.The landlord behaved unfairly and did not act according to its obligations as laid out in the tenancy agreement.
  20. Its stage 1 response does not show that the landlord grasped what the resident’s complaint was about. Its stage 2 response was dismissive and lacked appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns. Neither complaint response showed empathy towards the resident’s issue, appropriately considered his vulnerability in its response to the issue and were of a poor standard. It has not demonstrated it has a collaborative and co-operative approach towards resolving complaints, working with colleagues across teams and departments. The landlord’s failure to refer to its own complaint records to discover it had previously resolved the complaint issue, undermined its response.
  21. Overall, the landlord’s failure to use its complaints process as an effective resolution tool negatively impacted the resident. Had the landlord acted appropriately, the resident would have had no need to have again brought the issue to the Ombudsman.
  22. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 May 2024, to inform him that it had refunded the service charges. His rent statement shows the landlord refunded the service charge costs as a credit to his rent account on 17 April 2024. However, this was only for the financial years 2023 to 2024 and 2024 to 2025. It is unclear why, at this point, it did not refund the charges for previous years, or why there was a delay in informing the resident.
  23. The landlord recognised the service charge refund on 17 April 2024 was incorrect. On 11 June 2024 it reversed the refund and applied a new credit to the resident’s rent account, for the previous 6 financial years’ service charge costs. The local authority then recoveredthe refund, as a housing benefit overpayment on 23 July 2024. The landlord’s records do not show it clearly explained the housing benefit overpayments processto the resident. It would have been reasonable for it to have told him the refund would be credited to his rent account and the local authority would then recover this from there.
  24. The landlord sent the resident a further stage 1 complaint response on 6 September 2024. This demonstrates the resident needed to pursue his concerns further and there was a delay in the landlord putting things right. It confirmed it had refunded the residents service charge payments for the previous 6 financial years and apologised for the trouble it had caused him. However, this was after we had contacted the landlord on 20 August 2024, for information about the complaint. It is unclear whether our involvement prompted the landlord to act or if it did so independently.
  25. The landlord clearly missed opportunities to put things right for the resident. It did not identify it was wrong in applying the service charges before the resident raised his complaint or during its internal complaint procedure. It failed to consider the Ombudsman’s previous determination of case 202013904, had no regard to the legal advice it received following this and failed to learn from the outcomes of that case. Its complaint responses then exacerbated the issue, by not directly addressing the resident’s actual complaint which would have caused him significant confusion.
  26. This is the second time the Ombudsman has investigated the resident’s service charge issue. This is concerning given his vulnerabilities, which the landlord was aware of. While the landlord’s service failures were significant, the steps that the resident took, demonstrate he had the ability to understand how to resolve it. The resident has said he believed the landlord only refunded the service charge costs due to his involvement. The evidence available to this investigation would support his view.
  27. Although the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident in the time, inconvenience and stress it caused him, we do not consider there was a significant detrimental impact on him. Although it rectified the issue, it failed to acknowledge the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused or make an appropriate offer of compensation for these. Had the landlord not rectified the issue, then a finding of severe maladministration would have been made.
  28. We find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for further information on the service charges for the 2024 to 2025 financial year. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation, which we consider appropriate redress to put things right.

Request for an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).

  1. The Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012, state EPCs are required where a building is sold or rented out. A guide to EPCs for the marketing, sale and let of dwellings (2017) states existing occupiers and tenants will not require an EPC unless they sell, assign or sublet their interest in a building.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord sometime in January 2024, to request it provided him a new EPC for his property. He said he needed this to apply to the warm homes scheme.
  3. The warm homes scheme lists its eligibility criteria as, a home in England, that is privately owned by a person or landlord and has an EPC rating of D, E, F or G.
  4. The resident has said that the Energy Ombudsman has told him, that since 2020, landlords needed to have EPCs for properties they manage. While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the EPC requirements of landlords are set out in Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012.
  5. The landlord refused the resident’s request and on 15 January 2024, he raised a formal complaint about the matter. He was unhappy that the EPC had expired in 2023 and felt he was being “fobbed off” by the landlord.
  6. On 16 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that EPCs expire after 10 years, and it is only when it is selling or renting a property, that it needs to provide a new one. It noted the resident’s dissatisfaction and apologised it could not help.
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. It is unclear when the resident did this. On the 23 January 2024 the landlord told the resident escalating the complaint would not change the outcome. It also said that he may have to wait a few months for a response due to the back log of complaints it had at that time.
  8. The landlord’s response to the resident request to escalate his complaint is a concern. Speculating on the outcome of a complaint at that stage risks devaluing and prejudicing the complaint process. As mentioned in paragraph 39 of this report, the landlord advised of service improvements to its complaints handling. However, the advice given to the resident indicatesthe landlord needs further work to effectively embed these improvements.
  9. The landlord’s records show it sent its stage 2 acknowledgment letter on 5 February 2024. This was at least 9 working days after the resident’s request and 4 working days outside its target, of 5 working days to acknowledge escalating a complaint, as set out in its complaints policy.
  10. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 21 March 2024. This was 33 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint and 13 working days outside of its target, to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, as set out in its complaints policy. Although the landlord did not apologise for the delay in acknowledging the complaint at stage 2, it did so for the delay in providing its response. The delay was not significant, it identified this and awarded the resident £30 compensation, which we consider was appropriate.
  11. The landlord sought guidance on the matter from its void coordinator and the landlord safety certificate website. It included this in its stage 2 complaint response and told the resident there was no requirement for it to provide a new EPC, as it was only required to do this if the property was being re-let.
  12. The landlord’s response was in line with regulations. However, the resident wanted an EPC to improve the insulation in his home, and the landlord is committed to working towards EPC C status across all its homes, through a major works investment programme. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to support the resident to improve his property’s energy performance rather than obstructing it. This would have benefitted both the resident and the landlord.
  13. It would have been reasonable for the landlord’s complaint responses to have informed the resident of its major works investment programme, in which it would obtain a new EPC. Knowing the landlord would be taking steps to improve his property’s energy performance, may have satisfied the resident’s concerns. As it failed to do so, it left the resident in a position where it was his responsibility to obtain a new EPC.
  14. We find that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request it provided him with an up-to-date EPC. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation, which we consider appropriate redress to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for further information on the service charges for the 2024 to 2025 financial year.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request it provided him with an up-to-date Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
    2. pay the resident directly, £550 compensation, comprising of:
      1. £500 for the failures identified in its response to the resident’s request for further information on the service charges for the 2024 to 2025 financial year.
      2. £50 for the failures identified in its response to the resident’s request that it provided him with an up-to-date Energy Performance Certificate.
    3. arrange for an Energy Performance Certificate assessment of the resident’s property.
    4. confirm in writing that it will not seek to recover service charges from the resident in future years and ensure it does not apply service charges to the resident, under the current terms of his tenancy.
  2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. provide the resident and the ombudsman with details of the measures it has taken to embed learning from complaints in its process.
  3. The landlord must confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within the time limits specified.

Recommendations

  1. Consider the findings and recommendations of our Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report if it has not already done so. This is to help improve its record keeping.
  2. It is recommended the landlord remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of:
    1. a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes and put things right for the resident.
    2. following its complaints policy and offering residents the opportunity to discuss complaints when escalated to stage 2.