London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202413449)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413449

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 January 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 repairs to a window.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom, first floor flat within a converted house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has a daughter who has a mental health condition.
  2. The landlord’s records say the resident reported her window was broken, and that the glass windowpane had fallen out, on 6 March 2024. The landlord attended as an emergency repair but then recorded a no access. She reported it again on 18 March 2024, the landlord attended the same day and made the window safe by boarding it up. It then raised a further repair to replace the window.
  3. On 10 April 2024 the resident called the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint about it having taken too long to replace the window. She said it had been 5 weeks and its contractor had told her the landlord would not pay for the works. She said it was a health and safety risk, she was going to have the window replaced herself and wanted it to reimburse her. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint the following day and said:
    1. She had reported the window on 18 March 2024, and its contractor had measured up for a replacement on 28 March 2024.
    2. Its contractor had told her during a call they needed to obtain another quote as the landlord had rejected the quote they had. It said she had told them she would replace the window herself and ended the call, so the contractor cancelled the repair.
    3. It had attended within its 20-working day policy timeframe to measure up as the window would have needed to be made.
    4. It would not reimburse her if she paid for the works herself, but to let it know if she wanted it to arrange the repairs.
    5. How she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 April 2024 and told it to escalate her complaint. She said its contractors had attended to measure up twice, when she was told they would be replacing the window. She said she had told the contractor to speak to the landlord not to cancel the repair. She also said she had called the landlord and said it had 7 days to replace the window or she would deduct the cost from her rent. It acknowledged the escalation the same day.
  5. On 23 April 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint again. It provided it stage 2 response on 3 May 2024 in which it:
    1. Reiterated that it would not reimburse the resident if she had the window replaced herself and that she would need to maintain it going forwards.
    2. Said it had attended within its policy timeframe and that it had needed to measure up to be able to order the parts needed.
    3. Said she could contact it if she wanted to go ahead with the repair.
    4. Concluded there had been no service failure and said how she could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 May 2024 and said its response was untruthful. She said its contractors had lied to her and had not told her about needing to order the new window. She said it had no concern for her welfare or safety. She told it to repair the window. The resident emailed it again on 11 June 2024 chasing the repair. She said if it did not do this within 4 weeks, she would pay for it and deduct the cost from her rent.
  2. Between 5 and 25 September 2024 the landlord sent a text message and called the resident twice to book an appointment for 30 October 2024. However, on 7 October 2024 she asked it to rearrange the appointment as she had not been told about it. It booked a new repair for 8 January 2025. On 18 November 2024 it tried to call the resident, sent her a text message and an email, to inform her it had brought the appointment forward to 21 November 2024. However, she called it on 20 November 2024 and said she had not been told about the new appointment. The landlord has told this Service that it has booked a new appointment for 7 January 2025.
  3. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the window has not been secure. She was concerned that her daughter might try to jump out of it due to her mental health condition, or intruders might break in through it.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its repairs policy confirms it is responsible for making safe, boarding, and repairing or replacing windows. It will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to ‘make safe’ or temporarily repair. It will complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days.
  2. When the resident first reported her window, the landlord attended as an emergency but did not get access. When she reported it again the landlord attended and boarded it up to make it safe. This was standard industry practice and in line with its policy. It is not known whether it also measured up for a replacement during this appointment, which would have been helpful. It did however raise the follow-on repair on the same day to a glazing contractor.
  3. Within her complaint escalation the resident said the contractor had attended 2 or 3 times to measure up. Within its stage 2 response the landlord said it had attended once, within its 20-working day (or 25 calendar day) timeframe. It is possible that one of the times the resident was referring to was its first attendance, which led her to believe its second would be to fit the window. There was a lack of clear communication regarding the stages of a window replacement as the resident was not clear on how the process worked or how long it might take.
  4. There is dispute over what was said during the call between the resident and the contractor. The resident later asked for a copy of the call recording. It is not known whether there was a recording, and one has not been provided to this Service. If the resident did say she would complete the repairs herself then it was not unreasonable for the contractor to cancel the repair. The landlord appropriately said in its stage 2 response it could raise the repair again if she asked it to do so.
  5. It was correct and appropriate for the landlord to deny the resident’s request to be reimbursed if she paid for the window replacement herself. It was also correct for it not to agree to a deduction from the rent as neither proposal were in line with its policy.
  6. The resident told the landlord, in no uncertain terms, after the end of the complaints process, to repair the window on 5 May 2024. It did not appear to take any action until 5 September 2024 which was an unexplained and unreasonable delay. While the resident’s request was made using an expletive and in a derogatory manner, it was clear, and the landlord should have acted sooner. Following this date it did then take appropriate steps to try to agree an appointment.
  7. Overall, there was service failure. Although the landlord acted in line with its repairs policy, it did not communicate clearly with the resident to explain the repairs process or manage her expectations. While it may have found the resident’s communication style challenging it could have been more proactive in arranging the window replacement during the complaints process. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £75 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to a window.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the service failure detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £75 compensation for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its service failure.
    3. Confirm compliance with these Orders to this Service.